COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In re: Nathan[1] and Foxborough Public Schools BSEA #2602145
DECISION
This decision is issued pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq.), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. §794), the state special education law (M.G.L. c. 71B), the state Administrative Procedure Act (M.G.L. c. 30A), and the regulations promulgated under these statutes.
A hearing was held on June 10, 11, 17, and 18, 2026, before Hearing Officer Amy Reichbach. With the consent of both parties and the agreement of all participants, the hearing was held in person on the first three days and online via Zoom on the fourth day. Those present for all or part of the proceedings were:
Mother
Father
Jennifer Bethel General Education Teacher, Foxborough Public Schools
Analise Brower Director, Sally Borden Program at Friends Academy
Nicole Coman Educational Psychologist, Private Practice
Marilyn Engelman Educational Psychologist, Private Practice
Rose Ferraro Elementary Team Chairperson, Foxborough Public Schools
Erica McNamara Special Education Teacher, Foxborough Public Schools
Cory Mikolazyk Director of Student Services, Foxborough Public Schools
Jennifer Morrison Special Education Teacher, Foxborough Public Schools
Victoria Palazzetti Center Director, Lindamood-Bell Learning Center
Lillian Wong, Esq. Attorney for Parents
Craig Kowalski, Esq. Attorney for Foxborough
Iman Aoun BSEA Intern
Olivia Syat BSEA Intern
Carol Kusinitz Court Reporter
Alexander Loos Court Reporter
The official record of the hearing consists of documents submitted by Parents and marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-57; documents submitted by Foxborough Public Schools (Foxborough, or the District) and marked as Exhibits S-2 to S-23; three and one-half days of oral testimony and argument; and a four-volume transcript produced by the court reporters. At the parties’ request, a postponement was granted through June 26, 2026 for closing arguments. The parties delivered oral closing arguments, and the record closed on that date.
I. INTRODUCTION
On August 18, 2025, Parents filed a Hearing Request with the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) against Foxborough, asserting that the District failed to offer Nathan, who had been diagnosed with Specific Learning Disabilities (SLDs) in reading (dyslexia) and written expression, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder – Combined Type (ADHD-C), and Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD), a free, appropriate public education (FAPE). Specifically, Parents contend that the Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) proposed by Foxborough for the periods from May 11, 2023 to May 10, 2024 (2023-2024 IEP), May 8, 2024 to May 7, 2025 (2024-2025 IEP), and June 11, 2025 to June 10, 2026 (2025-2026 IEP), denied and continue to deny Nathan a FAPE. Parents seek reimbursement for tuition and related services incurred as a result of their unilateral placement of Nathan at Lindamood-Bell Academy (LBA) for the 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 school years, including the summer of 2025; and at the Sally Borden Program at Friends Academy (Sally Borden) for the 2025-2026 school year.[2]
The Hearing was scheduled for September 22, 2025. On August 28, 2025, Foxborough filed its Response to Parents’ Hearing Request, asserting that the IEPs and placements proposed by the District during the relevant time period were and are reasonably calculated to provide Nathan a FAPE in the least restrictive environment (LRE).
The parties jointly requested postponement of the Hearing in September 2025, January 2026, and April 2026; each request was allowed for good cause, and the Hearing was ultimately scheduled for June 10, 11, 17, and 18, 2026.
The issues set forth for Hearing are as follows:
Fifth Grade (2023-2024)
1. Whether the IEP and placement offered by Foxborough for Nathan at the time of his unilateral placement at LBA for the 2023-2024 school year were reasonably calculated to provide him with FAPE;
2. If not, whether the placement at LBA for the 2023-2024 school year was appropriate; and
3. If so, whether it is fair and equitable to reimburse Parents for the costs associated with Nathan’s placement at LBA for the 2023-2024 school year.
Sixth Grade (2024-2025)
4. Whether the IEP and placement offered by Foxborough for Nathan at the time of his unilateral placement at LBA for the 2024-2025 school year and summer of 2025 were reasonably calculated to provide him with a FAPE;
5. If not, whether the placement at LBA for the 2024-2025 school year and summer of 2025 was appropriate; and
6. If so, whether it is fair and equitable to reimburse Parents for the costs associated with Nathan’s placement at LBA for the 2024-2025 school year and summer of 2025.
Seventh Grade (2025-2026)
7. Whether the IEP and placement offered by Foxborough for Nathan at the time of his unilateral placement at Sally Borden for the 2025-2026 school year were reasonably calculated to provide him with a FAPE;
8. If not, whether the placement at Sally Borden for the 2025-2026 school year was appropriate; and
9. If so, whether it is fair and equitable to reimburse Parents for the costs associated with Nathan’s placement at Sally Borden for the 2025-2026 school year.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT[3]
1. Nathan, who is 13 years old, resides with his parents and brother in Foxborough, Massachusetts. He is a kind, bright, optimistic, curious, and funny boy who is eager to learn and puts forth full effort in academic work and sports. In his free time, Nathan enjoys playing ice hockey, baseball, tennis, and board games. Nathan strives to go to college, play hockey, and become an engineer. (P-1, P-16, P-22, P-24; S-6, S-17, S-20; Mother, I: 32-33)
2. Prior to kindergarten, Parents observed that Nathan was struggling with communication. He qualified for early intervention and received speech and language services at the Kennedy-Donovan Center. Nathan’s pre-kindergarten and kindergarten teachers expressed concern about Nathan’s attention and early literacy skills. Due to these concerns and a family history of dyslexia, Parents obtained a private neuropsychological educational assessment of Nathan in November and December of 2018, while he was in kindergarten in Foxborough. (P-1; Mother, I: 33-36)
3. The private evaluators diagnosed Nathan with Other Specified Neurodevelopmental Disorder and Unspecified Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), with a Rule/Out of a Specific Language-Based Learning Disability (Dyslexia). They offered recommendations regarding educational programming, including an explicit, systematic phonics program. (P-1; Mother, I: 39-43, II: 218-21)
4. Results of a private speech-language evaluation conducted on February 11, 2019 indicated isolated language-based learning challenges involving the processing of complex auditory information, word retrieval, and language formulation in the context of many age-appropriate spoken language skills. In part, the report recommended the services of a school-based speech-language pathologist; an occupational therapy (OT) evaluation for regulation concerns; use of programs focusing on phonological awareness and articulation/phonology; and speech articulation integrated into Nathan’s academic program; as well as modifications and accommodations. (P-2; Mother, I: 43-45, II: 221-22)
5. Parents provided both evaluations to Foxborough, and the District convened a meeting on March 28, 2019, while Nathan was in kindergarten, to review them. The Team determined that Nathan did not present with a disability but proposed accommodations. Foxborough also recommended that Nathan undergo an OT screening and that the Team reconvene six to eight weeks later for a progress update. (P-3; Mother, I: 45-48)
6. Parents were distressed by the finding of ineligibility and began researching private language-based programs. They selected the Hamilton program at the Wheeler School (Hamilton), as its location in Providence, Rhode Island was convenient for the family. Nathan began first grade at Hamilton, where he was enrolled in language arts, written expression, social studies, science, and elective classes, as well as a daily reading group and Orton-Gillingham (OG) lessons three to four times a week. Nathan was one of only two students in each of his classes. (P-4, P-5; Mother; I: 49-52, II: 226)
7. At Hearing, Parents testified that they did not know they could request that Foxborough reconsider Nathan’s eligibility for special education, and they were concerned about how he would do in general education classes. Nathan remained at Hamilton for the second and third grades. He attended classes in the same subjects each year, though in second grade he was one of five students in each class and in third grade he was one of eight. He received OG instruction in a small group setting of two to three students in second grade; no testimony was offered regarding the size of his OG group in third grade. Nathan struggled in third grade, as he had trouble accessing some of the language and demonstrated difficulty with writing, attention, and focus. Nathan became anxious, his self-esteem suffered, and he began trying to avoid school. Hamilton staff recommended an updated neuropsychological evaluation. (P-7, P-8, P-9; Mother, I: 54-63)
8. Nathan began the 2022-2023 school year in fourth grade at Hamilton, in a class of ten students. As reading and writing demands and expectations increased, his transition to fourth grade was extremely difficult. In November 2022, Hamilton staff expressed to Parents that because Nathan was disruptive and was not keeping up, he could not remain at Wheeler. Hamilton suggested that Parents request that Foxborough evaluate Nathan again. (Mother, I: 64-67)
9. Around the same time, on or about November 7, 2022, Dr. Allison Schettini Evans conducted a private neuropsychological evaluation of Nathan.[4] His overall cognitive abilities were in the average range, and his Cognitive Proficiency Index fell in the low average range. Nathan displayed many neurocognitive and academic strengths falling in the average to above average ranges. Evaluation results indicated strong visual-spatial reasoning skills and solid vocabulary, math problem-solving, and math fluency skills. However, Nathan demonstrated challenges in language-based learning (reading/writing), executive functioning, and regulation. He also exhibited weaknesses in phonological awareness, decoding, automaticity, and rapid recognition and retrieval of visually presented linguistic stimuli. Nathan performed in the borderline range overall on the CTOPP-2, scored in the impaired range on several Woodcock-Johnson measures, and scored in the impaired and borderline ranges for reading fluency and comprehension, respectively, on the GORT-V. He scored in the average and low average ranges on measures of math facts and math calculations, respectively. Dr. Evans’ report identified specific weaknesses in impulsivity, attentional drift, attention to detail, and cognitive flexibility, as well as notable challenges with emotional and behavioral regulation, which contributed to Nathan’s anxiety and frustration. (P-11; Mother, I: 67-70)
Diagnoses included Dyslexia (moderate to severe), ADHD-C; and an adjustment disorder, with mild to moderate mood disruption. Dr. Evans recommended a school placement with support for language-based learning disabilities and executive functioning challenges, with integrated support for social-emotional difficulties and systematic, direct instruction from trained providers as well as individualized (two-to-one) intensive reading support for at least 45 minutes a day. Dr. Evans noted that this reading support would usually be delivered through OG or the Wilson Reading System (Wilson), but she recommended Lindamood-Bell because Nathan had made such slow gains with OG and Wilson in the past. She also recommended supplemental programs to further solidify Nathan’s decoding and encoding skills, such as Lexia or LiPS; direct fluency training at least 10-20 minutes daily using a program such as Read Naturally or Great Leaps Learning to assist with deficits in rapid naming and retrieval; and ongoing, programmatic support to address potential weaknesses in reading comprehension. Finally, the report noted that Nathan would benefit from a process approach to, and accommodations for, writing (i.e., a scribe); word chunking; integrated executive functioning accommodations and a one-to-one executive functioning coach; in-school counseling; pragmatic language instruction from a speech and language pathologist; and OT for self-regulation strategies delivered individually and integrated into the classroom.[5] (P-11; Mother, I: 68-71)
10. Following Nathan’s discharge from Hamilton, Parents sought a structured environment with intense instruction in language and reading skills. They opted not to enroll him in Foxborough and instead, on January 4, 2023, applied for the District to approve a home education program for Nathan. Although Parents enrolled him in the Seeing Stars program at the Lindamood-Bell Center (LBC) in Newton, Massachusetts for the second half of fourth grade, and he attended in person, the homeschool form was required because neither the LBC nor the Lindamood-Bell Academy (LBA) is an accredited school in Massachusetts. Although Mother testified that Nathan attended LBC during fourth grade, the homeschool application, which was approved by Foxborough on or about January 6, 2023, contained information about LBA.[6] (P-12, P-19; Mother, I: 72-77, II: 235-36)
11. Typically, when parents reach out to LBC, they provide background information regarding their child, including reports, evaluations, and IEPs, if any. LBC personnel then conduct a “learning ability evaluation,” a series of standardized assessments to assist LBC in determining areas of strength and remediation needs, and recommend programs and/or instructional supports. For Nathan, LBC recommended Seeing Stars and the On Cloud 9 math program, which targets the foundations of math. (Palazzetti, I: 166-68, 194)
12. Nathan attended LBC from January 9, 2023 to May 26, 2023, for four hours day five days per week. One of his instructors (called “clinicians”) was Victoria Palazzetti, whose current position is Center Director at Lindamood-Bell Learning Process in Newton, Massachusetts.[7] Ms. Palazzetti provided Nathan with Seeing Stars instruction for one to two of the four hours a day, five days per week he spent at LBC. She worked with him on the foundations of reading, including development of phoneme awareness, recognition of high-frequency sight words, word attack and decoding skills, spelling, and oral reading fluency and accuracy. Although Nathan was initially enrolled in English Language Arts (ELA), math, and a science/social studies block, after one month, LBC stopped his science/social studies instruction and paused math intervention. He completed minimal social studies work and no science. Nathan did not attend physical education or elective courses at LBC. LBC worked on executive functioning by prompting or supporting Nathan to write down assignments and checking to make sure he had his homework folder when he left at the end of the day. Because each student had individual classroom space within LBC, the only time Nathan interacted with peers was during breaks between classes. Although Ms. Palazzetti testified that breaks lasted between five and 15 minutes each, she also testified that Nathan received four hours of content area instruction during the four hours he spent at LBC per day. Ultimately, she clarified that each instructional block was approximately 45 or 55 minutes, as Nathan had a 15-minute morning snack time and breaks between classes that lasted five minutes. Ms. Palazzetti worked with approximately 19 other students per week during the time she worked with Nathan. (P-17; Mother, I: 74-75; Palazzetti, I: 165-66, 189, 197-98, 205-08)
13. According to Mother, LBC differed from Hamilton, where instruction included content areas such as social studies, science, and ELA; “with Lindamood-Bell [Nathan] wasn’t focused on content. It was more on just basically putting sounds and letters together and then being able to fluently read the word.” (Mother, II: 238)
Spring 2023 Evaluation, 2023-2024 IEP, and Fifth Grade
14. When Parents shared Dr. Evans’ neuropsychological evaluation with Foxborough toward the end of 2022 or beginning of 2023, the District indicated that it wished to conduct its own testing of Nathan. Foxborough conducted OT, speech and language, and educational evaluations of Nathan in the spring of 2023.[8] (P-13, P-14, P-15; S-2, S-3, S-4, S-5; Mother; I: 67-68, 77-78)
On the OT evaluation, conducted in March 2023,[9] Nathan demonstrated strengths in several areas, including fine motor skills, visual perceptual skills, visual motor integration, and independence with activities of daily living (ADL) skills; and weaknesses in sensory modulation, attention, and planning skills. The report recommended the following accommodations: frequent opportunities for movement breaks; sensory tools; tools to screen out external stimuli; checklists for multi-step tasks; visuals of final products; visuals or checklists for organization of materials; and visuals for time management. (P-13; S-2)
With the exception of a below-average ability to understand semantic relationships, Nathan scored in the average range on all subtests of the CELF-5 during the speech and language evaluation, also conducted in March 2023.[10] He showed a few articulation challenges. Recommendations included recasting errored speech sounds by modeling correct production; repetition, rephrasing, and modeling of instructions as needed; encouragement of continued participation in natural peer-based social opportunities; and movement breaks. (P-14; S-3)
Foxborough administered the Wechsler Individual Achievement Tests-Fourth Edition (WIAT-4) on two dates in March and April 2023 to measure Nathan’s reading, writing, and math skills. The evaluator noted that he was distractible, but that the assessment was a valid representation of his abilities. On the reading subtests, Nathan scored in the average range in pseudoword decoding, but in the low average to extremely low range on all others. His basic reading and decoding composites both fell in the below average range; his reading fluency composite was extremely low; phonological processing index was low average; and orthographic processing index was extremely low. In writing, Nathan achieved one low average, two low, and two extremely low scores; his performance in essay composition could not be scored as the minimum word count was not met. Nathan scored in the low and below average ranges, respectively, on the mathematics and math fluency composites. His overall math score fell in the low average range. (P-15; S-4, S-5; Mother, I: 78)
15. On May 11, 2023, Foxborough convened an initial eligibility Team meeting to review District evaluations and Dr. Evans’ report. Dr. Evans did not attend the meeting, nor did representatives from Hamilton or LBC. Neither program provided teacher observations or work samples for the Team to review. The Team determined that Nathan was eligible for special education under the disability categories of Specific Learning Disability (SLD): Reading, Health: ADHD, and Emotional: Adjustment Disorder, and proposed an IEP for the period from 5/11/2023 to 5/10/2024 (2023-2024 IEP) with a full inclusion placement. The 2023-2024 IEP contained goals in Reading, Writing Skills, and Math Skills; A-Grid consultation with an occupational therapist or OT assistant (1 x 15 minutes per month); B-Grid Academic Support – ELA (6 x 40 minutes/cycle) and Academic Support – Mathematics (6 x 40 minutes/cycle), both to be provided by special educator, general educator, and/or educational assistant (EA); and C-Grid Reading Support (2 x 40 minutes/cycle), to be delivered by a special educator and/or EA. The IEP also proposed extended school year (ESY) reading and math, each 1 x 60 minutes per cycle, to be delivered by a special educator or EA. Under “Additional Information,” the Team noted that service delivery would be flexible between the B and C grids, “at the professional discretion of the provider to best facilitate specialized instruction and support.” Finally, the proposed IEP included a plethora of accommodations across setting, time, presentation, and response.[11] (P-16; S-6; Mother, I: 78, II: 227, 230-31; Ferraro; II: 415-25)
16. Parents were unhappy with the District’s proposal that Nathan be placed in general education classes with reading instruction only twice per cycle. At Hearing, Mother testified that the failure of the service delivery grid to specify whether a service provider would be a special educator, a general educator, or an EA suggested that Nathan’s services would not be required to be delivered by a special education teacher. Via letter dated June 28, 2023, Parents rejected in full the proposed 2023-2024 IEP and placement, explaining that they did not feel it was intense enough given Nathan’s needs.[12] Parents did not check the box on the response form to request a Team meeting; they understood that meant the Team would reconvene the following spring. Mother acknowledged receiving the Notice of Procedural Safeguards and also acknowledged that the N1 associated with the 2023-2024 IEP stated that the Team could be reconvened to review progress and make additional recommendations should Nathan not make effective progress with the proposed supports in place, but she testified that she did not recall being informed that she could request a Team meeting at any time.[13] (P-16; S-6, S-7; Mother, I: 79-80, II: 231-33; Ferraro, II: 427-29)
17. On or about August 23, 2023, Foxborough received notice from Parents that they would be placing Nathan unilaterally at the Lindamood-Bell Academy (LBA) for fifth grade, the 2023-2024 school year, and seeking reimbursement.[14] Parents also submitted an application to homeschool Nathan for the 2023-2024 school year, so he could attend LBA beginning September 5, 2023. Foxborough approved the home school application, but on August 24, 2023, denied Parents’ request for public funding, in part because LBA was neither accredited in Massachusetts nor an approved special education program. (P-18, P-19; S-7, S-8; Mother, I: 80)
18. LBA is a private K-12 school that is not accredited by the Massachusetts Department of Education (DESE), though it is accredited in California. One-to-one and small group instruction at LBA is provided by clinicians, who follow the Pearson curriculum. To become a clinician, individuals must, at a minimum, be in pursuit of a bachelor’s degree. No specific major, teaching license, or prior teaching experience is required. Initial training for clinicians consists of a two-week instructional development workshop, comprised of intensive training in the Lindamood-Bell Seeing Stars and Visualizing and Verbalizing programs, followed by a 90-day period in which new clinicians work with mentors to deliver instruction to a student (two teachers to one student). Following their initial training, clinicians receive continuous professional development in maintaining the instructional fidelity of Lindamood-Bell programs, pacing students’ instruction, and writing and updating lesson plans.[15] (P-51; Palazzetti, I: 163-65, 169, 171, 192-94, 204-05)
19. Following the initial learning ability evaluation, progress at LBA is monitored and communicated to families through midyear and final evaluations; progress updates following every 40 sessions of instruction; parent-team conferences; and written report cards. (Palazzetti, I: 170)
20. LBA does not follow IEPs or offer social skills classes; nor does LBA offer related services such as speech and language, OT, or counseling. There are no licensed school clinical social workers, counselors, or school psychologists on staff. (Palazzetti, I: 199-200, 203-04)
21. Nathan began fifth grade at LBA with front-loaded instruction in Seeing Stars. According to Ms. Palazzetti, all Seeing Stars instruction targets phoneme awareness, as well as symbol imagery; the program moves from level to level (i.e., from single-syllable to multi-syllable words) as a student displays 85 percent accuracy. Students’ instruction also addresses sight word reading through a Star Word Box task, wherein a student does not “graduate” from a word until it is recognized consistently in a short period of time. Spelling skills are addressed through a Visual Spelling Chart task, and reading fluency is addressed through a Reading in Context task. In addition to Seeing Stars, Nathan also received some front-loaded instruction in On Cloud 9, which is delivered by a clinician through a mini lesson, followed by a problem set that a student works through with a clinician, and at the end, the student must complete an “exit ticket.” An assessment occurs at the end of each unit. (Palazzetti, I: 171, 178-81, 195-96)
Following the front-loading of Seeing Stars and On Cloud 9, for the remainder of the 2023-2024 school year, Nathan attended ELA, science, social studies, and math, each one session a day, five days a week. His instruction was all delivered one-to-one by four to five different clinicians. Nathan had access to several accommodations and modifications: “popcorn reading,” where he and his teacher would alternate reading aloud; dictation when writing; and movement breaks. Nathan’s teachers utilized strategies to support his self-esteem: “by-design motivation,” or providing positive feedback and guiding him through Socratic questioning to correct his own mistakes; “magical learning moments,” wherein teachers would write down students’ accomplishments, then ring a bell and celebrate with other students; and milestone celebrations for significant progress. These accommodations and strategies were not individualized interventions but standard program features available to all students. (Palazzetti, I: 171-74)
22. Parents believed Nathan’s limited ability to socialize with peers and receive related services at LBA was worth the trade-off, as they prioritized having him learn to read. As Dr. Evans had recommended OT, speech therapy, and Zones of Regulation, Parents arranged for Nathan to receive these services in the afternoons at the Kennedy-Donovan Center, where he had received early intervention. Specifically, Nathan attended OT twice a week and speech once a week; he also worked through the Zones of Regulation one-to-one with an occupational therapist to learn how to regulate his emotions. Nathan also participated in hockey and baseball travel teams, which provided him opportunities to interact with peers. (Mother, II: 239-41)
23. Nathan received biweekly progress updates at LBA. According to Ms. Palazzetti, Nathan made academic progress in fifth grade, based on LBA evaluations that track student progress. She also noted that Nathan grew socioemotionally, as he displayed less negative self-talk. (Palazzetti, I: 170, 176-77)
Additional Evaluation, 2024-2025 IEP, and Sixth Grade
24. In November and December of 2023, pursuant to Parents’ request, Dr. Marilyn Engelman[16] conducted a multi-day psychoeducational evaluation of Nathan.[17] Prior to administering the testing instruments, Dr. Engelman reviewed Nathan’s previous evaluations and spoke with Mother. Although she did not observe Nathan in school, Dr. Engelman also spoke with Ms. Palazzetti. Dr. Engelman noted that during testing, Nathan sustained attention for tasks involving his areas of strength, such as blocks and visuals, but was overcome by frustration and fatigue whenever tasks requiring reading were introduced. He was aware of how slowly he worked and needed many breaks. (Engelman, II: 275-79, 369-70, 378-79)
Results of the WISC-V demonstrated overall cognitive abilities in the average range. Nathan’s verbal comprehension composite fell in the high end of the average range; visual-spatial composite in the high average range; fluid reasoning and working memory composites in the average range; and processing speed in the low average range. Dr. Engelman noted that Nathan worked slowly and performed better on tasks involving visual and hands-on activities. Despite testing showing average-range cognitive abilities, Dr. Engelman reported that Nathan “is a young man of average to high average cognitive ability.” (P-22; Engelman, II: 279-81)
On the WRAML-3, Nathan’s scores for verbal memory fluctuated from the superior range to the low end of the average range; visual memory scores fell within the average range; and Nathan scored in the superior and average range on two tests of attention and concentration. Dr. Engelman noted that Nathan was able to hold onto meaningful information read to him but had difficulty remembering material that he did not find meaningful, such as lists. (P-22; Engelman, II: 281)
Nathan struggled with reading on the Woodcock-Johnson, earning scores in the deficient range in broad reading and sentence fluency. He scored in the below average range on letter-word identification, comprehension, and oral reading subtests, and in the average range on the word attack subtest. (P-22; Engelman, II: 283-85)
On the CTOPP-2, Nathan’s performance ranged from high average to deficient. He scored in the average range in phonological awareness and in the low average range on phonological memory; his rapid symbolic naming scores were very low. Dr. Engelman indicated that Nathan would have difficulty with fluency, recall, and speed, which would impact his comprehension.[18] On the Lindamood-Bell Auditory Conceptualization Test (LAC-3), Nathan scored a 4.4 grade equivalent, in the low end of the average range; he struggled again with multitasking. (P-22; Engelman, II: 286-90)
Nathan had difficulty on the GORT-5, with a fluency grade equivalent of 2.0 and comprehension grade equivalent of 3.4. Dr. Engelman testified, inconsistently, that Nathan’s GORT score fell in the below average range and that it was in the low average range; she did not clarify which it was. Nathan scored in the low average range, at a 3.5 grade equivalent, on the GSRT. Dr. Engelman observed that Nathan benefitted from the multiple-choice format; she was surprised that he could comprehend what he was reading due to his difficulties with decoding, slow pace, and errors. (P-22; Engelman, II: 290-93)
On Woodcock-Johnson written language tests, Nathan scored in the below average range for broad written language; spelling was a notable weakness, while his writing samples were stronger. Nathan scored within the low average range on most of the TOWL-4, demonstrating good logic and strength in sentence combining, though conventions (such as spelling, punctuation, and capitalization) were areas of weakness. Dr. Engelman assessed Nathan’s math skills through the Woodcock-Johnson and the KeyMath-3 DA. Nathan scored in average range on the former. His scores on the KeyMath-3 DA were variable, from the high average to the low end of the average range. (P-22; Engelman, II: 293-95, 298-99)
On the BRIEF-2, parent and teacher scores were within the expected range, though both noted that Nathan could be fidgety. Dr. Engelman recognized that the teacher’s scores were in a one-to-one context, but, because he was at LBA, she could not solicit information about Nathan’s performance or functioning in a larger class. On the BASC-3, Mother rated Nathan in the average range. His teacher provided similar scores, though she rated attention and learning problems in the at-risk range, anxiety in the clinically significant range, and problem-solving and executive functioning in the elevated range. All SRS-2 scores fell within normal limits. (P-22; Engelman, II: 299-303)
Dr. Engelman diagnosed Nathan with a SLD with impairment in Reading (dyslexia) in the areas of decoding, reading fluency, and comprehension; a SLD with impairment in Written Expression in the areas of writing fluency, spelling, punctuation, grammar, clarity, and organization; and a mild GAD. She confirmed his diagnosis of ADHD-C but concluded that Nathan no longer met the criteria for an Adjustment Disorder. (P-22; Engelman, II: 304)
Dr. Engelman recommended a school or program that specializes in working with students of average cognitive ability who present with dyslexia, written language disabilities, and attentional challenges, where Nathan can receive special education services and accommodations in all classes (including electives) for the entire school day. She recommended that these classes comprise no more than six to eight students, and that all of Nathan’s teachers be trained to work with students with specific learning and attentional difficulties, including language-processing deficits, dyslexia, SLDs, ADHD, and executive function challenges. According to Dr. Engelman, cognitive retraining programs should be integrated into Nathan’s school programming to help improve his focus and attention, reaction time, processing speed, and reading fluency. (P-22; Mother, I: 89-90; Engelman, II: 304)
Dr. Engelman recommended a number of accommodations, including extended time; individualized instruction to accommodate slow processing; cues from teachers to redirect attention; preferential seating away from distractions; relatively direct eye contact; repetition or review of important information; one direction given at a time, which he repeats to ensure understanding; fidget toys; executive functioning skills embedded in each class; daily checklists; visual information coupled with written and oral explanations; reminders to check his work; use of a computer and voice recognition software; copies of classroom notes; scaffolding; and review and repetition. (P-22)
For reading, Dr. Engelman recommended daily specially designed instruction in phonological processing and retrieval using a highly structured, systematic, linguistically controlled, rules-based reading program. She further recommended that reading and spelling skills be tied together through an OG approach and that Nathan receive remediation in comprehension using specialized direct instruction; a structure for reading assignments to help him organize; direct specialized instruction regarding text structures; organization techniques; note taking; and work on fluency using read-aloud programs. Direct, explicit and systematic written language instruction was recommended, as were graphic organizers; templates; outlines; written language skills coupled with reading through a program such as “Framing Your Thoughts;” and instruction in editing techniques. Finally, for executive functioning and organizational strategies, Dr. Engelman recommended individualized tutorial support in organizing tasks, initiating work, and learning to self-advocate; daily specially designed instruction in problem-solving, particularly when Nathan is required to complete complex activities; semantic mapping strategies; outlines; having Nathan organize assignments before beginning work; and working in stages with review of the big picture. (P-22)
25. At Hearing, Dr. Engelman testified that Nathan needed a small, supportive, language-based program. Components of a strong language-based program, according to Dr. Engelman, include the following: breaking material down; presenting material visually and auditorily, using multisensory, multimodal, hands-on approaches; using step-by-step directions; making sure students understand vocabulary; beginning each class with review and preview; and checking for understanding, including by having students repeat what the lesson is. Dr. Engelman testified that she is familiar with Landmark, as she has observed programs and trained teachers there, and that she considers Landmark a strong language-based program. (Engelman, II: 304, 358)
26. On May 8, 2024, Nathan’s Team held his annual review and reviewed Dr. Engelman’s report. Dr. Engelman did not attend. The Team proposed an IEP for the period from May 8, 2024, to May 7, 2025 (2024-2025 IEP) reflecting a partial inclusion placement in the Language Independence in Navigating the Curriculum (LINC) program located at Foxborough’s Ahern Middle School (Ahern). (P-24; S-9; Mother, I:91, II: 243; Engelman, II: 365; McNamara, III: 617)
The 2024-2025 IEP maintained the same disability categories from the 2023-2024 IEP. It proposed goals in Reading, Writing, and Math, and the following services: A-Grid consultation with an occupational therapist or OT assistant (1 x 15 minutes per month); B-Grid Academic Support in Science (5 x 15 minutes/cycle), Social Studies (5 x 15 minutes/cycle), and Mathematics (6 x 40 minutes/cycle), all to be provided by a special educator, general educator and/or EA; and C-Grid Reading Support (3 x 43 minutes/cycle) and Academic Support – ELA (9 x 43 minutes/cycle), both to be delivered by special educator and/or EA.[19] The IEP also proposed ESY Reading (1 x 180 minutes/week) to be delivered by a special educator. The many accommodations across setting, time, presentation, and response from the 2023-2024 IEP carried over into the 2024-2025 IEP, as did the “Additional Information” provision permitting flexibility of service delivery between the B and C grids. At Hearing, Erica McNamara, a special educator in Foxborough’s LINC program,[20] explained how this flexibility would work in practice. For example, if a student typically attends Ms. McNamara’s substantially separate ELA class, but the general education ELA class is doing a lesson that would benefit the student, he could join the class for that lesson. Likewise, if a student is taking a science test in the general education classroom but needs a smaller group setting or a read-aloud, the student could receive that support in a substantially separate setting. (P-24; S-9, S-22; McNamara, III: 615-17, 650-52)
27. Placement in the LINC program for the 2024-2025 school year was proposed by the Team to increase Nathan’s services in reading and writing in the context of a language-based program, while providing support in math, social studies, and science. Foxborough’s LINC program was created during the 2021-2022 school year through a partnership with the Landmark School Outreach Program (Landmark). Through a formal agreement, still in effect, Landmark agreed to provide ongoing consultation and professional development to District staff. At the beginning of each school year, Landmark provides a six-hour, one-day professional development training to onboard LINC staff, including general education teachers who work in the program. Landmark staff is available beyond this training to consult with LINC teachers and staff regarding planning, curricular and instructional issues, as well as to problem-solve, observe, and provide feedback on programming. (S-21; McNamara, III: 575-77, 599-601, 631, 636-37)
28. Ms. McNamara began teaching in Foxborough six years ago, assisted in the creation of LINC and is currently one of the special education teachers for fifth- and sixth-grade LINC students. Initially, Ms. McNamara worked with Landmark to develop a mission statement, goals, structure, supports, and a student profile for the program; she continues to meet with Landmark staff regularly to ensure that LINC is meeting students’ needs. LINC began at Ahern as a language-based team-teaching program for a cohort of fifth graders and has since expanded through tenth grade. The purpose of the program is to develop students’ literacy skills and strategies, while concurrently providing supported access to grade-level curriculum. The LINC program provides students with highly structured, consistent instructional methodology across all content areas, using a multisensory approach to support language processing and production, and explicit instruction in organization and planning to promote executive functioning skills. LINC is staffed by dedicated special education teachers, EAs, language strategy-trained content teachers, and a reading teacher; a speech/language pathologist provides consultation. LINC follows the Massachusetts curriculum frameworks, and all LINC teachers hold Massachusetts teaching licenses. LINC EAs attend two trainings annually delivered by Landmark and receive additional training from Ms. McNamara, which includes a close review of each student’s IEP, supports, and needs. One of the current EAs is a certified teacher. (S-22; McNamara, III: 573-78, 585-86, 594, 597, 599, 604)
All students who are considered for the LINC program require a multisensory approach to support their skills in reading, writing, listening, and speaking. The eligibility team, which may include (but is not limited to) a psychologist, school counselor, special education coordinator, speech-language pathologist, and special educator, uses a checklist adapted from Landmark’s eligibility criteria to determine whether a student is a good fit for LINC. Key indicators include diagnoses such as dyslexia and/or dysgraphia and reading levels well below grade level; many students also have executive function issues such as ADHD and/or receive speech and language services. Most students in the program have average cognitive abilities, but lower cognition and/or behavioral issues would not necessarily rule out a student if he were otherwise a good match for the cohort. (S-22; McNamara, III: 578-81)
During the 2025-2026 school year, there were six LINC students in fifth grade and six in sixth grade. In addition to the elements described above, Ms. McNamara explained that LINC students engage in cohesive language-based learning across content areas, including preview and review; decoding and other reading strategies; receiving directions step-by-step; employing routines; and limiting the amount of new instruction. To facilitate consistency, the fifth and sixth grade LINC program is staffed by Ms. McNamara; a second special education teacher who teaches math to all LINC students in grades five through eight in a co-taught model; a general education teacher who teaches science and co-teaches math; a general education teacher who co-teaches social studies and ELA; and two EAs. The general education teachers receive training from Landmark that includes curricular modification and implementation of language-based supports. At the beginning of each school year, LINC staff review the IEPs of the students they will be teaching. Ms. McNamara provides ongoing training for the EAs, who are typically with the same classes each day, so they are familiar with the students and the routines of each class. (S-22, S-23; McNamara, III: 576, 581-89, 609-11)
Fifth- and sixth-grade LINC students begin their day in homeroom, an inclusion setting with approximately 20 to 22 students. Ms. McNamara described homeroom as a responsive classroom, where students engage in social-emotional and executive functioning activities, such as circle time and previews of the school day. Students in the LINC program can receive ELA instruction in an inclusion class (supported by an EA) or a substantially separate setting (with Ms. McNamara and either one or two EAs). During the 2024-2025 school year, four to six students participated in the multigrade (fifth and sixth) substantially separate ELA class. LINC students attend a co-taught math class staffed by a special education teacher, a general education teacher, and an EA. LINC students attend a co-taught social studies class using the “Investigating History” framework, which is staffed by Ms. McNamara, a general education teacher, and an EA. Because social studies is language-heavy, Ms. McNamara meets with the general educator twice a week to plan and review the curriculum; in class, students are often split into groups to read text aloud, or Ms. McNamara might pull a small group for additional support. LINC students attend a daily inclusion science class of 20 to 22 students taught by a general education teacher with the assistance of an EA. A special education teacher pushes into the science class between one and three times per six-day cycle. Students in the LINC Program also choose electives. (S-22; McNamara, III: 583-84, 587-88, 590-94, 596, 627, 637-38)
LINC students attend a reading class every other day with Ms. McNamara and an EA, comprising four to six students. Ms. McNamara grounds the class in OG and employs other research-based, systematic, multisensory strategies to address phonics, reading, fluency, comprehension, and vocabulary. She differentiates instruction, uses small groups for writing and decoding, and engages students in activities such as word sort for spelling and sound patterns, tactile writing (i.e., on a whiteboard), read-aloud, and partner practice. Ms. McNamara previews and reviews content from students’ other classes to help them learn vocabulary and improve reading fluency. She also divides students into small groups of two or three for skills work in writing, decoding, or whatever else they may need. (McNamara, III: 590-91, 602-04)
Students in the LINC program can also receive pull-out services. LINC works closely with service providers who push in and pull out students based on their needs. This year, Ms. McNamara co-teaches with the speech and language pathologist once per cycle; the speech and language pathologist and an occupational therapist each push in once per cycle as well. The LINC program engages regularly in student support team meetings, where all staff working with LINC students meet together once per cycle to discuss students and their progress. If students need social-emotional support, even if they do not have counseling services on their IEPs, they can participate in lunch bunch or meet with one of three school counselors or two school social workers, and/or the school psychologist. (McNamara, III: 594-97)
ESY LINC programming consists of reading, writing, math, and language support. It is staffed by LINC teachers, and the speech pathologist usually pairs with the special educator to teach a class. (McNamara, III: 619-20)
Progress monitoring within LINC occurs in a variety of ways. Ms. McNamara administers assessments at the beginning, middle, and end of the year to measure students’ progress toward their IEP goals. She uses instruments such as the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) to measure instructional-level fluency; the quick phonics screener; two different writing assessments, one of which was developed by Landmark; and two different tests of phonemic awareness, including FastBridge. LINC students access supports such as graphic organizers and sentence starters when they participate in the assessments. Progress is also measured through observation and standards-based report cards. (McNamara, III: 604-09)
At Hearing, Ms. McNamara testified, based on the information about Nathan that she gathered from attending the May 2024 Team meeting where his outside evaluations were discussed, and her knowledge of the sixth-grade cohort she taught during the 2024-2025 school year, that LINC would have been appropriate for Nathan for sixth grade. (McNamara, II: 617-19)
29. On May 23, 2024, Father emailed Nathan’s Team Chair requesting to observe the LINC program. The Team Chair responded with two proposed dates and times and, at the same time, requested approval for Ms. McNamara to observe Nathan at LBA. The dates offered did not work for Parents, who counter-proposed two days the following week. The Team Chair indicated that these dates did not work due to end-of-year activities. Parents responded the following week but did not receive an answer before their response to the proposed IEP was due, five days later. Parents did not respond to the District’s request to observe Nathan at LBA. (P-25; Mother, I: 93-94)
30. On or about June 24, 2024, Parents rejected the proposed 2024-2025 IEP and placement in full, as they believed it was not sufficiently intense and did not reflect Dr. Engelman’s recommendations. At Hearing, Mother testified that Parents rejected the IEP because they did not understand LINC, had not been able to observe the program, and remained uncomfortable with the idea of Nathan participating in general education classes. Parents did not request that the Team reconvene to discuss their rejection. In July 2024, Parents submitted a homeschool application to Foxborough so that Nathan could attend LBA for sixth grade. (P-24, P-27; S-9; Mother, I: 94)
31. On August 7, 2024, Parents notified Foxborough that they would be placing Nathan unilaterally at LBA and seeking reimbursement. On August 13, 2024, Foxborough denied Parents’ request for public funding for the same reasons it had done so the previous year. (P-28; S-10; Mother, I: 96-97)
32. Nathan attended LBA for sixth grade during the 2024-2025 school year. He continued to receive Seeing Stars one-to-one. At one point, an attempt was made to increase the group size for instruction, but Ms. Palazzetti explained that because Nathan’s comprehension was strong, he might be ready to move on before the student with whom he was paired. As such, Nathan resumed one-to-one Seeing Stars instruction. He did not receive any other Lindamood-Bell instruction during the school year. (Palazzetti, I: 175-76)
33. According to Ms. Palazzetti, by the time Nathan left LBA following sixth grade, he was more independent and confident in his skills, especially writing. She believed LBA was particularly helpful for Nathan because he benefitted from a one-on-one environment, where his “teachers were there solely to teach him and respond to his specific learning differences.” (Palazzetti, I: 177-78, 181-82)
34. Ultimately, Mother was able to observe the sixth-grade LINC program while Nathan was attending sixth grade at LBA. She observed the second half of a science class, where students were completing a project, then observed Ms. McNamara’s reading class. Six students were in attendance, along with an EA. Mother noted that students rotated through specialized reading instruction and other stations, all working on different things. (Mother, I: 98-99)
35. In the winter or spring of the 2024-2025 school year, Parents hired educational psychologist Nicole Coman to observe the LINC program.[21] When Ms. Coman conducts program observations pursuant to parents’ requests, she generally gathers background information through an intake call with parents, then reviews private and school district testing, progress reports, and current IEPs before scheduling her observation. Afterward, she meets with the student to do some screening. Ms. Coman followed this process with Nathan and his family. (Coman, I: 115-19)
36. On April 1, 2025, Ms. Coman observed two components of the LINC program that had been proposed for Nathan: a sixth-grade inclusion science class and a sixth-grade substantially separate ELA class. To look ahead to the following year, she also observed two components of the seventh-grade LINC program: Academic Support and inclusion ELA.[22] (P-30; Coman, I: 118-19)
Ms. Coman spent approximately 32 minutes observing LINC Science, comprising approximately 20 students, taught and supported by a general education lead teacher and supported by an EA and special educator Ms. McNamara.[23] Ms. Coman first observed the students actively engaged in the continuation of a multi-day lab activity focused on human body systems. After completing station rotations, students moved to their regular classroom, where the lead teacher facilitated a reflection discussion in which students participated actively, followed by a partner turn-and-talk. Two students sitting with Ms. McNamara were prompted to discuss and refer to information from their lab handouts, as the lead teacher and EA circulated to check in and support students informally. A slide projected on the board used visuals to review body systems, as students then participated in a full class review of the lab handout. Afterward, the teacher demonstrated a 3-D model of the respiratory system, while a video explained how the model worked and reinforced the role of the system. For the remainder of class, students could opt for one of three activities, including an interactive, grade-level quiz program. (P-30; Coman, I: 120-23)
In her report and at Hearing, Ms. Coman noted that given Nathan’s processing speed and attentional difficulties, the science class she observed was too big and too fast-paced, and the grade-level materials might be too difficult for him to decode. She also expressed concern about the level of independence required of students and the absence of language-based instruction. (P-30; Coman, I: 123-27)
Ms. Coman also observed the sixth grade substantially separate LINC ELA class, which consisted of six students and was staffed by Ms. McNamara and one EA. Ms. McNamara read aloud from the novel Refugee, which, according to Ms. Coman, is a book appropriate for students reading at the fourth- to seventh-grade levels. Students then worked with a non-fiction text about elephants to be used for an essay they would be writing the following day in preparation for the MCAS. The essay topic was written on the board, and Ms. McNamara prompted students to reflect on strategies they could use during the read-aloud to prepare for writing; student responses included going back to the text, highlighting or underlining key facts, and annotating. Ms. McNamara read the text aloud, pausing periodically to point out vocabulary terms and checking for comprehension. The students interpreted what was happening in an image within the passage, then revisited the essay prompt. Finally, Ms. McNamara modeled the use of a graphic organizer, populated with students’ contributions. (P-30; Coman, I: 128-30)
Ms. Coman expressed concern that she did not observe formal instruction in decoding or scaffolding, and she believed Nathan’s comprehension skills at the second- or third-grade level would prevent him from accessing the material used in the class. She was not confident that he would be able to keep up and understand what was being read. (P-30; Coman; I: 128-29)
37. After she observed the LINC program at Ahern, Ms. Coman reached out to Foxborough Team Chair Kerri-Ann Quinn with some questions about the program and its staff. Ms. Quinn explained that the answers to these questions had been provided at Nathan’s last Team meeting and would be revisited at the next one. Ms. Coman explained that she had not attended the Team meeting and reiterated her request. There is no evidence that Ms. Quinn ever responded; Ms. Coman did not attend the Team meeting that occurred the next month. (P-29; Coman, I: 133-34, 152-53)
38. Consistent with her protocol, following her observation, Ms. Coman conducted a screening of Nathan on May 13, 2025, which lasted 45 minutes. She used the WIAT-IV for math fluency and the GORT-5 for reading. On the WIAT-IV, Nathan scored in the low average range for addition and in the average range for subtraction and multiplication. On the GORT-5, Nathan’s reading fluency, rate, accuracy, and comprehension were all at the second- or third-grade level. According to Ms. Coman, these scores indicated Nathan was moving in the right direction, as they had increased slightly since Dr. Engelman’s previous testing. However, he was still significantly below his same-grade peers. (P-30; Coman, I: 126, 131-33, 146)
39. Ms. Coman reported that LINC’s sixth grade program would not have met Nathan’s language, attentional, and social-emotional needs, as it offered only one substantially separate class in ELA, whereas Nathan required a small student-to-teacher ratio and language-based instruction delivered by a trained special education teacher (who is also trained in understanding language-based learning needs) across all core curricular areas. At Hearing, Ms. Coman acknowledged that there is value in observing a program when the student for whom she is assessing it is present, and she had not observed Nathan at LBA or within any educational environment, nor had she observed any of the programs Nathan attended. Asked what makes a good language-based program, Ms. Coman explained that it includes a teacher trained and perhaps certified as a reading specialist, who is trained in and familiar with language-based instruction and profiles of students with language-based learning needs; pull-out support for reading delivered through OG, Lindamood-Bell, and/or Wilson; one-to-one or small group instruction; and interventions embedded into all classes throughout the day. The program should be populated by a cohort of students with similar learning challenges and profiles and should take data on them regularly. (P-30; Coman: 1: 134-38, 146-47, 149, 154-55, 157-59)
2025-2026 IEP and Seventh Grade
40. Following Nathan’s annual review meeting on June 11, 2025, Foxborough proposed an IEP dated June 11, 2025, to June 10, 2026 (2025-2026 IEP), with a partial inclusion placement in the LINC program. The IEP contained goals in Basic Reading Skills, Writing Skills, and Math Skills and included an A-Grid OT consult (1 x 15 minutes/month); Academic Support in the B-Grid for ELA (5 x 40 minutes/6-day cycle, delivered by the special educator, general educator, or EA), History (5 x 15 minutes/cycle delivered by the special educator, general educator, or EA), Science (5 x 15 minutes/cycle delivered by the special educator, general educator, or EA), and Math (5 x 40 minutes/6-day cycle, delivered by the special educator, general educator, or EA); and C-Grid Reading Support (6 x 43 minutes/cycle, delivered by the special educator and/or EA) and Academic Support (6 x 43 minutes/cycle, delivered by the special educator and/or EA). The Team proposed ESY Reading Support (4 x 180 minutes/week). The 2025-2026 IEP carried over the same accommodations that appeared in the two previous IEPs. (P-31; S-11; Mother, I: 100-01)
41. Foxborough’s LINC program for seventh grade is similar to the sixth-grade LINC program, in that students attend science with inclusion support provided by EAs, and math is co-taught by a special education teacher, a general educator, and an EA. Each of these classes comprises 18 to 22 students. Unlike sixth grade, however, where LINC students attend ELA in either a substantially separate or an inclusion setting, depending on their needs, LINC seventh graders attend an ELA class of 18 to 22 students co-taught by a special educator, a general educator, and an EA. Seventh graders also attend inclusion social studies, whereas sixth grade social studies is co-taught. Because the EAs assigned to seventh-grade LINC attend inclusion, co-taught, and academic lab classes with students, they function as “bridges” to the special educators. In seventh grade, reading classes increase in frequency from three times per cycle to daily and utilize Wilson, rather than OG. Seventh-grade LINC staff collaborate and consult with Landmark to design, develop, and make changes to the program. They also receive ongoing professional development from Landmark, including onboarding training at the beginning of each school year. Two seventh-grade general educators who teach within LINC missed Landmark’s training at the beginning of the 2025-2026 school year; however, Jennifer Morrison,[24] one of the seventh-grade LINC special educators, provided them with training in which they reviewed students’ profiles, specific needs, and practices and methodologies that would be most helpful for each of them. (Morrison, III: 676, 679-87, 714; Bethel, IV: 738, 743-44, 764-65)
Ms. Morrison is Wilson-certified, which required a three-day introductory course and a full-year practicum that included coursework and observations by instructors. She has completed a Landmark language-based learning disability course as well as Landmark courses on executive functioning, English language learners with disabilities, understanding dyslexia, “Talking to Writing,” reading fluency, and LiPS. Ms. Morrison participated in Landmark’s onboarding when she was hired by Foxborough in 2022 to teach in the LINC program, and she worked with Landmark consultants to develop the program for eighth grade, and then expand it to the high school level. At Hearing, Ms. Morrison described the essential elements of a language-based program as follows: rules-based reading instruction; multisensory instruction across the curriculum; supportive preview, practice, review, and repetition delivered outside of the general education setting; consistent routines to support executive functioning and working memory; and supports for social-emotional health, including programming to assist students in understanding their profiles and advocating for themselves. Where a language-based program has an inclusion component, special educators must work in close partnership with general educators to ensure that they understand students’ profiles and curricular modifications and accommodations. To facilitate scaffolding of students’ learning, high-quality curricular materials are also necessary. (Morrison, III: 663-68, 673-75)
Ms. Morrison teaches a daily pull-out reading class, supported by an EA. During the 2025-2026 school year, the class was comprised of six seventh graders, five from the LINC program and one who attends as a related service. Ms. Morrison uses Wilson for core instruction, including academic word lists, and supplements with strategies from other programs, such as Landmark’s word and sentence pyramid approach to reading fluency and LiPS phoneme sequencing, as well as both Wilson materials and content-area materials for reading comprehension practice. Ms. Morrison believes that her Wilson instruction builds appropriately on the OG instruction that occurs in the fifth and sixth grade LINC program. She differentiates instruction based on students’ needs. If students’ word reading is at different levels, she divides them into groups and provides direct instruction to one group while the other engages in a multisensory activity with the EA, and vice versa. This year, all seventh-grade LINC students were reading around the same level. (Morrison, III: 686-94)
Ms. Morrison also teaches academic lab for LINC seventh graders three days per cycle, where she uses language-based strategies to review the content of their ELA, science, and social studies classes.[25] (Morrison, III: 665, 677, 702-04)
Ms. Morrison co-teaches LINC ELA with general educator Jennifer Bethel[26] and an EA. The class includes five LINC students and 13 or 14 other students. Ms. Bethel is responsible for the content of the ELA class, and Ms. Morrison is responsible for making sure LINC students can access that content. Ms. Bethel and Ms. Morrison employ a range of language-based approaches: multisensory models, graphic organizers, visuals, routines, chunking text with explicit directions, preview and review, syllabification and picking apart high-frequency vocabulary words prior to working on a grade-level text, and access to an audio version of texts. Ms. Bethel provides her lesson plans to Ms. Morrison in advance, permitting Ms. Morrison to make modifications and adjustments. Ms. Morrison and Ms. Bethel meet regularly and speak every day to adjust lessons as needed. Together they modify work for LINC students such that they might, for example, complete only the most important portion of an assignment to accommodate a slower pace. (Morrison, III: 665, 668-72; Bethel, IV: 738-41, 746-48, 773-76, 779)
LINC seventh graders attend a co-taught math class, a math lab which is taught (three days per six-day cycle) by the same special education teacher who co-teaches math, inclusion science and social studies supported by an EA and teachers who employ multisensory approaches and strategies (such as preview, review, and repetition, read-aloud, and audiobooks) which facilitate LINC students’ access to the content. Because these supports are offered to the whole class, LINC students do not stand out. LINC students also attend electives. There is some flexibility in the program, wherein if a student’s Team determines that he does not need math academic lab, for example, he may enroll in an additional elective. Seventh-grade LINC students also have access to related services such as OT, speech and language, and counseling. (Morrison, III: 665, 677-78, 700-02, 710-11)
Progress monitoring in seventh grade LINC is similar to sixth grade. (Bethel, IV: 748-50)
Based on her knowledge of the LINC program, and the information she gleaned about Nathan from conducting the academic portion of his three-year reevaluation and attending the associated Team meeting in March 2026, Ms. Morrison believes LINC is appropriate for Nathan and that he is a good fit for the LINC cohort that completed seventh grade this past school year.[27] (Morrison, III: 695-702, 706-07) Ms. Bethel, who also attended a recent Team meeting to discuss Nathan, agreed; she testified that Nathan’s profile and interests are similar to those of his proposed peers. (Bethel; IV: 776-77)
42. Although it was not the class Nathan would have been in because he was a sixth grader at the time, Ms. Coman observed seventh-grade Academic Support and inclusion ELA during her time at the Ahern on April 1, 2025. The four student Academic Support class was staffed by a special education teacher and an EA. Students received a high level of support as they reviewed a previous math lesson. Instruction was multisensory, as students were presented with visuals, measured concrete objects, and used repetition to help them learn and pronounce key vocabulary. Students whispered, shouted, and gestured terms, and the teacher led a choral repetition to assist with decoding. Students engaged in a hands-on activity using manipulatives, applied new skills to a word problem, and referenced a word wall. (P-30; Coman, I: 127-28)
The only concern Ms. Coman expressed about the appropriateness of the Academic Support class for Nathan was the peer cohort, whom she believed “seemed dissimilar” to Nathan. At Hearing, Ms. Coman testified that she noticed peers’ behaviors that “are similar and often associated with an individual with ASD,” though she acknowledged that she was not familiar with the other students’ profiles or IEPs.[28] (P-30; Coman, I: 127-28)
The seventh-grade inclusion LINC ELA class Ms. Coman observed consisted of approximately 21 students, a lead general education teacher, a special education LINC teacher, and an EA.[29] Students began working independently with a warm-up activity, then a short passage was projected on the board for them to proofread. Students actively shared their suggested edits, which the teacher made in real time in red marker. The lead teacher then explained the next activity, and students began rotating among three writing centers labeled “writing conclusions,” “what I need,” and “peer feedback or revision station,” all of which focused on argumentative essays. Students were given peer feedback guides and proofreading checklists at the stations. All LINC students were integrated into various groups; the special educator and EA circulated to provide support as needed. At one station, the lead teacher worked directly with a small group, reading the passage aloud as students brainstormed suggestions for improvement on a whiteboard, then shared them aloud within the small group. (P-30; Coman, I: 130)
Ms. Coman expressed concern that given Nathan’s writing challenges, a peer editing activity would be inappropriate for him, as it would exploit his learning differences and lead to anxiety and stress. (P-30; Coman, I: 130-31)
43. On May 13, 2026, Dr. Engelman observed the seventh-grade LINC program proposed for Nathan, including an inclusion social studies class, a pull-out reading class, Academic Support-Math, and a co-taught ELA class. (P-50)
The social studies class, taught by a general education teacher and supported by an EA, consisted of 14 students. Students worked individually or in small groups on an activity about ancient Greece that involved looking at pictures in the hallway, finding information in their textbook, and connecting both to modern day.[30] The teacher walked around the room assisting students, who were engaging with each other, while the EA worked mostly with one student. Some students seemed confused. Dr. Engelman expressed concern that the teacher did not preview vocabulary, provide examples of what would be expected, or employ other language-based strategies. She believed that Nathan would be distracted by the movement and noise in the classroom and overwhelmed by the material, which was not broken into smaller segments. (P-50; Engelman, II: 331-36)
Dr. Engelman then observed Ms. Morrison’s LINC pull-out reading class, which consisted of six students and was supported by an EA. All of the students were reading at a 3.5 Wilson level. The class began with a discussion and a preview of the day's activities. The students were then divided into two groups to read aloud words and phrases; one worked with Ms. Morrison and the other with the EA. Dr. Engelman noted that the EA corrected students’ pronunciation but did not prompt them to use decoding strategies. Afterward, students spent approximately 20 minutes on phonemic exercises, then worked on reading comprehension and fluency with a passage projected on a whiteboard, previewing the vocabulary, content, and structure of an activity they would be doing in English class. Dr. Engelman noted that Ms. Morrison reviewed vocabulary, provided examples, and used other language-based techniques, but expressed concern that the class spent only 15 minutes on reading and fluency. She opined that the class was taught more like academic support than language-based reading. (P-50; Engelman, II: 336-39)
The Academic Support math class Dr. Engelman observed consisted of five LINC students, one additional student on an IEP, a special educator, and an EA. The special educator started by reviewing the agenda that was posted on the whiteboard. The class was then divided into two groups, one with the special educator and the other with the EA. Students read definitions and matched them to vocabulary, which was then projected on the whiteboard. The teacher introduced a new mathematical concept, projecting an example on the board, and students then completed several additional problems to help prepare for a lesson they would be doing in their co-taught math class. The EA assisted students in breaking down problems into manageable steps. The teacher reminded students about their accommodations before administering a test. Dr. Engelman observed that the teacher broke down the material and the students were able to follow in a step-by-step fashion. The teacher used language-based strategies to help students navigate sophisticated vocabulary as they previewed the material that would be covered in their co-taught math class. (P-50; Engelman, II: 339-40)
The last class Dr. Engelman observed was co-taught ELA, comprised of six LINC students, 12 other seventh graders, Ms. Morrison, Ms. Bethel, and an EA. Students began with a warm-up activity, correcting grammatical errors in a passage, then divided into five groups to rotate through six “Book Club Review” stations. Each station involved a different activity. Instructions were written at each station, and some involved hands-on activities. Ms. Bethel stayed at one station, helping students engage in discussion; Ms. Morrison and the EA helped students at different stations, assisting LINC students for the most part in understanding the questions at each one. Dr. Engelman expressed concern that language-based strategies were not incorporated into the lesson, the material was not broken down into simple steps, and the class was chaotic and fast-paced. (P-50; Engelman, II: 341-43)
In addition to her concerns about the individual classes she observed, Dr. Engelman concluded that overall LINC was not appropriate for Nathan, as he needed to spend more time on skills such as decoding, fluency, and spelling, whereas too much of the time in LINC was spent previewing for the regular classroom. Dr. Engelman testified that Nathan needs a more self-contained program, as he would become frustrated in a “regular” classroom, particularly after spending the last two years in a one-on-one program. In connection with her observation and in preparation for the Hearing, Dr. Engelman reviewed redacted IEPs of the students in the seventh-grade LINC program proposed for Nathan. She testified that the cohort would not be appropriate because the cognitive abilities of most of the proposed peers were below his.[31] Moreover, according to Ms. Morrison, the LINC seventh graders were all reading at the same Wilson level; because Nathan was not using Wilson, it was unclear to Dr. Engelman where and whether he might fit with this group. (P-43, P-44, P-45, P-46, P-47, P-48, P-50; Engelman, II: 343-48)
At Hearing, Ms. Morrison disputed Dr. Engelman’s conclusions about the peer cohort. She explained that the students in the program have similar challenges to Nathan’s and that one student in particular would be a good peer match for him. Ms. Bethel testified to the benefits of inclusion for the LINC students, including the flexibility to group students based on mastery of different skills. Ms. Morrison also testified that the co-taught ELA classroom used language-based strategies, pointing to the preview of stories and the multisensory approaches employed at each Book Review station. (Morrison, III: 706-07, 709-10, 717-18; Bethel, IV: 759-61). Ms. Bethel also disputed Dr. Engelman’s characterization of the ELA class she observed, which aimed to refamiliarize students with concepts they had learned earlier in the year. According to Ms. Bethel, the class employed language-based strategies, including visual and tactile activities at each station, which Dr. Engelman may not have been able to observe from the back of the classroom. (Bethel, IV: 751-55)
44. On June 13, 2025, Parents notified Foxborough of their intent to “unilaterally secure private Lindamood-Bell literacy services” for the summer of 2025 and seek reimbursement from the District. On July 1, 2025, the District denied Parents’ request for public funding. (P-33; S-12, S-13; Mother, I: 102-04)
45. Nathan attended LBA during the summer of 2025, where he received Seeing Stars instruction targeting spelling as well as oral reading fluency and accuracy. (Palazzetti, I: 178)
46. On July 14, 2025, Parents rejected the proposed 2025-2026 IEP and placement in full, as they were concerned about Nathan’s ability to keep up with the pace and access the content, particularly in larger general education classrooms. In doing so, they relied heavily on Dr. Engelman’s recommendations and Ms. Coman’s program observation. (P-31; S-11; Mother, I: 102-03)
At the same time, Parents notified Foxborough that they would be unilaterally placing Nathan in the Sally Borden Program at Friends Academy (Sally Borden) in Dartmouth, Massachusetts for the 2025-2026 school year and seeking reimbursement in the form of full tuition and transportation. (P-31; S-11)
On August 5, 2025, the District denied Parents’ request for public funding, explaining that Sally Borden was overly restrictive for Nathan and not approved by DESE; moreover, the proposed 2025-2026 IEP was reasonably calculated to provide Nathan with a FAPE in the LRE. (P-31; S-14)
47. Sally Borden, a program within Friends Academy, serves approximately 40 students in grades one through eight with language-based learning differences. Sally Borden is not approved by DESE to provide special education, nor is it seeking approval. Sally Borden does not follow the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks. The Director of Sally Borden, Analise Brower, is a certified academic language therapist.[32] All 12 of the Sally Borden teachers and learning specialists hold at least a bachelor’s degree and are trained at least at the classroom educator level of OG (with a recommendation to continue on to the associate level) and in other multisensory approaches. With the exception of one staff member, they do not hold Massachusetts teaching licenses. A part-time counselor, whose qualifications are unclear, is available one day a week to all of the 222 students who attend Friends Academy, not just Sally Borden students. As Sally Borden has neither an occupational therapist nor a psychologist on staff, the program provides OT consultations and collaborates with a psychologist in private practice through connections with area practitioners. The director of outreach is the only licensed speech and language pathologist on staff. She conducts evaluations but does not do direct intervention with students. If students require direct OT, speech and language, or counseling services, they may be delivered through proportionate share services. (P-34, P-55; Brower, III: 447, 457, 519-23, 526-29, 530-31, 533-36, 547-48, 550-51)
Sally Borden does not follow IEPs; however, each student has an individualized Learning Profile Snapshot that includes diagnoses, the cognitive impacts of learning differences, classroom skills, and instructional recommendations and accommodations. Sally Borden students typically demonstrate average to superior cognitive abilities, but have language-based learning differences such as dyslexia, dysgraphia, and dyscalculia, and often have attentional, working memory, and/or processing speed vulnerabilities. Seventh-grade Sally Borden students attend ELA, math, and social studies classes together, with one non-special education teacher to nine students, and attend a structured literacy block with one teacher to three students. Sally Borden students are integrated for science, advisory, specials, and activity periods with other Friends Academy students in classes of 12 to 15 with one teacher. A learning specialist supports the inclusion academic classes approximately one period every two weeks. Teachers of the integrated classes are not considered Sally Borden teachers; as such, they do not need to meet the same qualifications, such as OG training. According to Ms. Brower, substantially separate Sally Borden classes are capped at nine students, a ratio “effective for both the benefits of small group learning, as well as a large enough group for a diverse range of opportunities for student collaboration,” and permit somewhat homogeneous groups for structured literacy. Ms. Brower explained that a student for whom one-to-one intervention was the best way to learn would not be a good fit for Sally Borden. (P-34, P-35; Brower, II: 456-59, 463-66, 470-71, 520-21, 523, 536-41, 543-44)
48. As a seventh grader at Sally Borden during the 2025-2026 school year, Nathan attended an integrated advisory four out of five mornings and every afternoon, where students engaged in community building and social-emotional learning activities and received executive functioning support. He participated in a structured literacy class (3 x 57 minutes per week), a small group intervention period based on OG principles with a teacher trained at the associate level of OG; his ELA and social studies classes met 4 x 57 and 3 x 57 minutes per week, respectively, with the same teacher who provided structured literacy. Nathan’s math class was also taught by a Sally Borden teacher with associate-level OG training, though direct instruction in language concepts did not occur in the class. Nathan attended integrated science[33] (3 x 57 minutes per week) and a Science Plus class with a learning specialist (1 x 57 minutes every two weeks). Sally Borden did not provide OT or counseling services for Nathan. His progress at Sally Borden was monitored through an internal Literacy Assessment[34] that was administered three times throughout the year. In both his first and second trimesters at Sally Borden, Nathan earned six A grades and one A-. By the end of seventh grade, Nathan showed some growth in his literacy skills though he continued to require support, particularly with reading comprehension and social skills. Ms. Brower testified that Sally Borden was and is appropriate for Nathan. (P-37, P-38, P-54, P-57; Brower, III: 474-75, 479-81, 483-85, 493-94, 499-503, 516, 533-34)
49. Dr. Engelman conducted a psychoeducational evaluation of Nathan over three days in January of 2026, as Parents wished to ascertain his growth and receive recommendations regarding his needs and placement. This evaluation was not before the Team at the time any of the IEPs here at issue was proposed.
Dr. Engelman’s evaluation confirmed Nathan’s previous diagnoses of SLDs in Reading and Writing, ADHD-C, and mild GAD. His cognitive ability remained in the average range, with significant fluctuations across his profile. Executive function weaknesses were noted, as were challenges with attention, though Dr. Engelman reported that Nathan’s focus and stamina had improved. Memory testing was lower than expected, and Nathan still did not know the letters of the alphabet sequentially. His reading and math fluency remained relatively weak, due to his slow processing speed. Dr. Engelman noted progress in many areas since her 2023 evaluation, particularly decoding and comprehension. She continued to recommend a small language-based program for Nathan across the curriculum, with accommodations such as frequent breaks, cues for attention, access to fidgets, and incorporated executive function strategies. At Hearing, Dr. Engelman testified that a language-based program is small, comprised of peers with similar cognitive abilities, and includes daily instruction in a linguistically-based reading program. (P-39, P-50; Engelman, II: 306-31)
Although she never observed Nathan at Sally Borden (or in any educational environment), Dr. Engelman recommended that Nathan continue his placement at Sally Borden, as classes were small and teachers were trained in OG. She noted that Nathan had learned effective strategies for taking in new information and organization and was making progress. (P-39; Engelman; II: 376)
50. Foxborough conducted psychological, academic, and educational assessments as well as an OT evaluation as part of Nathan’s three-year reevaluation in February, March, and April of 2026. None of these evaluations was before the Team at the time any of the IEPs here at issue was proposed. Nathan presented with a well-developed cognitive profile, demonstrating overall average cognitive abilities. Teacher ratings resulted in an overall social emotional composite score within the below average range, whereas parent ratings were within the average range. Nathan scored within the average range on the WIAT-4 oral language composite, as well as the basic reading and decoding composites, phonological processing index, and reading composite. He scored in the low average range on the dyslexia index and the low range on the reading fluency composite and orthographic processing index. Nathan’s writing composites fell in the below average and low ranges, whereas his math composites were in the average range. On the OT evaluation, Nathan demonstrated strengths across many areas but also displayed needs related to attention and regulation, particularly in noisy environments. Two of Nathan’s seventh grade teachers at Sally Borden completed educational assessments. Among other things, they indicated that Nathan struggles with distraction and has difficulty staying on task in smaller groups such as structured literacy, though he participates actively in class and has made progress. (P-40, P-41, P-42; S-15, S-16, S-17, S-18, S-19)
III. DISCUSSION
It is not disputed that Nathan is a student with a disability who is eligible for special education services under state and federal law. To determine whether Parents are entitled to a decision in their favor, I must consider substantive and procedural legal standards governing special education. As the party challenging the status quo in this matter, Parents bear the burden of proof.[35] To prevail, Parents must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Foxborough failed to propose IEPs reasonably calculated to provide Nathan with a FAPE during the 2023-2024 school year, 2024-2025 school year and summer of 2025, and/or 2025-2026 school year; that their unilateral placement of Nathan for the corresponding school year at Lindamood-Bell Academy and/or the Sally Borden Program at Friends Academy was appropriate; and that they are entitled to reimbursement.
A. Legal Standards: FAPE and Unilateral Placement
1. The Substantive Right to a Free Appropriate Public Education in the Least Restrictive Environment[36]
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was enacted “to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education . . . designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment and independent living.”[37] To fulfill its substantive obligations pursuant to federal law, a school district is required to develop and implement an IEP tailored to a child’s unique academic and functional needs.[38] To provide a FAPE, the IEP must be individually designed and reasonably calculated to confer a meaningful benefit.[39] It must include, “at a bare minimum, the child’s present level of educational attainment, the short- and long-term goals for his or her education, objective criteria with which to measure progress toward those goals, and the specific services to be offered.”[40] These elements should incorporate parental concerns; the student's strengths, disabilities, and recent evaluations; and the child’s potential for growth.[41] The goals contained in an IEP should be “appropriately ambitious.”[42] An IEP “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances” will be substantively sound.[43]
Under state and federal special education law, a school district has an obligation to provide the services that comprise FAPE in the LRE.[44] To the maximum extent appropriate, therefore, a student with disabilities must be educated with his peers who do not have disabilities, such 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."[45] "The goal, then, is to find the least restrictive educational environment that will accommodate the child's legitimate needs.”[46] For most children, a FAPE “will involve integration in the regular classroom and individualized special education calculated to achieve advancement from grade to grade.”[47]
Finally, evaluating an IEP requires viewing it as “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.’”[48]
Here, as Parents seek reimbursement for unilateral placements of Nathan at LBA for the 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 school years and the summer of 2025, and at Sally Borden for the 2025-2026 school year, I review the IEPs proposed for him during the relevant time periods against the substantive standards outlined above. If I determine that one or more of the IEPs were not reasonably calculated to provide Nathan with a FAPE, I must then turn to standards governing unilateral placement to determine whether Parents are entitled to reimbursement.[49]
2. Unilateral Placement
When parents elect to place a student unilaterally in a private school notwithstanding the availability of a FAPE through the school district, they retain responsibility for the cost of that education.[50] However, parents who enroll a student in a private school without the consent of or referral by the school district may obtain reimbursement as an equitable remedy under certain circumstances.[51] Under the IDEA, a Hearing Officer may order reimbursement for the cost of that placement if she finds that a district had not made a FAPE available to the child in a timely manner prior to the parents’ unilateral placement.[52] Hearing Officers and courts have interpreted this provision to allow reimbursement for a unilateral placement when: (1) the school district had not made a FAPE available to the student prior to that enrollment; and (2) the private school placement was proper.[53]
Unlike an IEP proposed by a school district, a unilateral private school placement need not meet all of the requirements of a FAPE in the LRE to be proper.[54] However, a parent is not entitled to “seek any alternative school she wishes if the public education is inadequate.”[55] Because “retroactive reimbursement is an equitable remedy for the failure of the public school to provide a FAPE to a disabled student . . . a private school placement must be consistent with the purposes of the IDEA.”[56] Consistent with this principle, for example, although parents “seeking an alternative placement may not be subject to the same mainstreaming requirements” as a school district, the “IDEA’s requirement that an appropriate education be in the mainstream to the extent possible . . . bears upon a parent’s choice of alternative placement and may be considered by the hearing officer in determining whether the placement was appropriate.”[57] The appropriateness of a more restrictive alternative placement depends on the individual student’s needs. For example, a U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York upheld the hearing officer’s denial of reimbursement for a unilateral placement that provided primarily one-to-one tutoring, in part because of lack of opportunities for the student to socialize with peers.[58] However, in R.L. v. Miami-Dade County School Board,[59] the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld reimbursement for a private placement that provided one-to-one tutoring for a student whose “IEP had historically provided for one-to-one instruction when the alternative educational environment overwhelmed” him, despite the lack of opportunities for socialization.[60]
No single factor is dispositive in determining the appropriateness of a unilateral placement, as courts take a totality-of-the-circumstances approach.[61] The reasonableness of the private placement will depend upon the nexus between the special education required and the special education provided,[62] such that a unilateral placement is only appropriate if it provides an education “specifically designed to meet the unique needs” of the child,[63] “supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from instruction.”[64] Given this standard, determining whether a unilateral placement is appropriate for a specific child requires distinguishing between the general benefits available to all students and those that effectively meet the specific child’s needs.[65] For example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the denial of reimbursement for a unilateral placement that did not provide an educational setting consistent with the recommendations for the student made by a clinician, and where its main benefits were small classes and modified grading procedures, measures which “might be preferred by parents of any child, disabled or not.”[66] On the other hand, courts have upheld reimbursement for unilateral placements that provide some educational benefit and are administered by experienced special education teachers;[67] that have a full curriculum suited to the student’s needs, including a “highly individualized regime of different types of therapy;”[68] or that provide opportunities for mainstreaming outside of core courses, with individual and smaller group instruction the student needed, within an educational setting well-suited to meet the student’s complex needs.[69]
B. Analysis
1. 2023-2024 IEP (Fifth Grade)
Although Nathan had not attended Foxborough since kindergarten, the District had information from multiple sources to consider at the May 2023 eligibility Team meeting. This included Dr. Evans’ November 2022 neuropsychological evaluation, which presented diagnoses of dyslexia, ADHD-C, and an Adjustment Disorder, and recommended a program with support for language-based learning disabilities and executive functioning, as well as integrated support for social-emotional challenges. Dr. Evans also recommended, among other things: intensive reading support for at least 45 minutes daily and daily direct fluency training for at least 10-20 minutes, to address Nathan’s decoding, encoding, fluency, rapid naming and retrieval, and reading comprehension weaknesses; integrated executive functioning accommodations and an executive functioning coach; counseling; pragmatic language instruction from a speech and language pathologist; and OT for self-regulation strategies, delivered individually and integrated into the classroom. The District’s educational testing, administered in the spring of 2023, confirmed low to extremely low performance on most measures of reading. Further, Foxborough’s OT and speech and language evaluations demonstrated the need for accommodations to reduce distractibility, as well as the need for participation in natural peer-based social opportunities.
Nathan’s Team found him eligible for special education under three categories: a SLD in Reading, a Health disability (ADHD), and an Emotional disability (Adjustment Disorder). The Team proposed the 2023-2024 IEP with goals in Reading, Writing, and Math, and appropriate accommodations for Nathan’s ADHD. OT was offered through consultation, 15 minutes per month. However, the IEP provided for a full inclusion placement with limited push-in and pull-out support. Direct reading instruction was offered for 80 minutes per six-day cycle, far short of the 55 minutes per day recommended by Dr. Evans. The IEP proposed daily inclusion support in ELA and math (40 minutes each), with language-based supports across Nathan’s day in the form of accommodations only. The IEP did not propose direct services to address Nathan’s executive function or speech and language deficits. Nor were any services or accommodations proposed to address Nathan’s social-emotional needs, including his Adjustment Disorder.
I therefore find that the 2023-2024 IEP was not “objectively reasonable” at the time it was promulgated.[70] Given Nathan’s documented needs, the IEP as written was not “reasonably calculated to confer a meaningful benefit.[71]
As Parents met their burden to prove that the 2023-2024 IEP proposed by Foxborough was not reasonably calculated to provide Nathan with a FAPE, I turn to the question of whether LBA was appropriate for him for fifth grade.[72]
Students at LBA are taught by clinicians, who are not required to have teaching licenses or teaching experience, or even a bachelor’s degree, as long as they are in pursuit of one. New clinicians may deliver one-to-one instruction to students upon completion of a two-week instructional development workshop and a three-month period during which they deliver instruction alongside a mentor.
Nathan’s instruction at LBA was all delivered one-to-one. He began fifth grade with front-loaded Seeing Stars reading instruction and On Cloud 9 math instruction. It is not clear from the evidence when he began receiving instruction in ELA, science, social studies, and math, each for 45 to 55 minutes per day. The evidence suggests that Nathan made some progress in his reading skills while he was at LBA, though it is not clear to what degree this occurred during the 2023-2024 year,[73] and, furthermore, “evidence of academic progress at a private school does not itself establish that the private placement offers adequate and appropriate education.”[74] Moreover, to conclude that LBA was an appropriate unilateral placement for Nathan, I must find that the program was specifically designed to meet his unique needs, supported by the services necessary to permit him to benefit from instruction.[75]
On the BRIEF-2 completed as part of Dr. Engelman’s 2023 evaluation, Nathan’s fifth grade LBA teacher rated him in the at-risk range for attention, the clinically significant range for anxiety, and the elevated range for executive functioning. Yet there is no evidence that LBA addressed these concerns or Nathan’s weaknesses, as identified by Dr. Evans, in impulsivity, attentional drift, cognitive flexibility, or emotional and behavioral regulation. By-design motivation and “magical learning moments,” used to bolster Nathan’s self-esteem, were standard program features available to all LBA students, not individualized interventions specifically designed to meet his social-emotional needs.[76] Given that his breaks between classes were approximately five minutes each, Nathan had limited opportunities to develop his social skills through the natural peer-based social opportunities recommended by Foxborough’s evaluators.
Nathan did not receive any related services at LBA such as speech and language, executive functioning, OT, or counseling, nor could he have received them there. Parents obtained private speech and language and OT services, including OT services focused on regulation, at the Kennedy-Donovan Center. Though not dispositive, it is appropriate for me to consider the fact that Parents “obtained necessary services not offered through the selected school from an outside agency.”[77] Here, the evidence—notably, Dr. Evans’ recommendations and Foxborough’s speech and language and OT evaluation—suggests that at least some of these services (i.e., those targeting pragmatic language, executive functioning, attentional issues, and emotional and behavioral regulation to reduce anxiety and frustration) should have been delivered in the school environment to permit Nathan to derive educational benefit from them.[78]
Considering the totality of the circumstances, I find that Parents have not proven that LBA was an appropriate placement for Nathan during the 2023-2024 school year. Although LBA offered more reading support than proposed by the District, the evidence shows that LBA was overly restrictive for Nathan[79] and did not take into account his profile beyond his language-based weaknesses. Specifically, LBA did not address Nathan’s documented executive function, attentional, and social-emotional needs, nor did LBA provide the supports and services necessary for him to benefit from the instruction specifically designed to meet his reading deficits.[80] As such, Parents are not entitled to reimbursement for costs of Nathan’s placement at LBA for fifth grade.
2. 2024-2025 IEP (Sixth Grade)
At Nathan’s annual review in May 2024, the Team reviewed the psychoeducational evaluation conducted by Dr. Engelman in November and December of 2023. Dr. Engelman’s report included diagnoses of SLDs in Reading and Written Expression, ADHD-C, and mild GAD; she concluded that Nathan no longer met the criteria for an Adjustment Disorder. Dr. Engelman recommended that Nathan attend a program that specializes in working with students of average cognitive ability who present with dyslexia, written language disabilities, and attentional challenges, staffed by teachers trained in working with these issues. In addition to multiple accommodations, she recommended small classes of six to eight students with profiles similar to Nathan’s; daily specially designed reading instruction delivered through an OG approach; direct written language instruction; and individualized executive functioning support. Dr. Engelman testified to the elements of a strong language-based program and acknowledged that Landmark is among them.
The Team proposed a partial inclusion placement in the sixth-grade LINC program, which was developed in connection with Landmark. Landmark provides both onboarding and ongoing training for, and consultation to, LINC special educators, general educators, and EAs. Ms. McNamara, who has extensive training and experience in language-based programming, assisted in the creation of LINC. She provides training for EAs and other LINC staff, with whom she reviews students’ profiles at the beginning of the school year. General educators, special educators, and EAs meet regularly to discuss modifications, accommodations, and student progress, and make adjustments as necessary. Instructional methodology is consistent across all content areas, using a multisensory approach to support language-based needs and explicit instruction in organization and planning to promote executive function skills. Students engage in cohesive language-based learning across content areas. Ms. McNamara testified in detail, and credibly, about the strategies employed by all staff to support students.
The proposed 2024-2025 IEP, which included Reading, Writing, and Math goals, provided for a substantially separate ELA class of approximately four to six students (9 x 43 minutes/six-day cycle); a reading class also comprised of four to six students, grounded in OG, that meets every other day for 43 minutes; co-taught math and social studies classes staffed by a general educator, a special educator, and an EA; and inclusion science staffed by a general educator and an EA. Co-taught and inclusion classes were comprised of 20 to 22 students, however, in addition to curricular modifications, the additional staffing permits delivery of instruction in smaller groups and more individualized support.[81] The IEP included a monthly 15-minute OT consultation, and a speech and language pathologist and an occupational therapist both push in to LINC classes. LINC students may participate in lunch bunch and have access to school counselors and social workers, even if they do not have counseling as an IEP service. The IEP proposed for Nathan included many of the accommodations recommended by Dr. Engelman. Although the providers of some services may not have been clear on the face of the IEP, this was likely discussed at the Team meeting; further, if Parents had questions, they could have reached out to the Team for clarification.[82]
Ms. Coman raised concerns about the appropriateness of LINC for Nathan. First, she asserted that Nathan required language-based instruction across all core curricular areas, and that LINC was not providing that. This contention appears to be based on her observation of an inclusion science class and a substantially separate ELA class. She concluded that the science class was too fast-paced and too big for Nathan, and that the ELA class utilized material beyond his reading level and did not appear to include formal instruction in decoding or scaffolding. Ms. Coman did not observe the reading class, however, where she may have seen more phonics-based instruction.
Although Ms. Coman reviewed previous evaluations of Nathan, she conducted only a 45-minute screening herself. Moreover, Ms. Coman acknowledged that Nathan was not present at the time of her observation, nor had she observed him in an educational environment.
For these reasons, and given that Ms. Coman’s opinion was disputed by Ms. McNamara, who testified credibly regarding the structure and methodology of LINC, I attribute diminished weight to Ms. Coman’s description of LINC and her opinion on its appropriateness for Nathan.[83]
The weight of the credible evidence supports Foxborough’s contention that LINC employs language-based strategies across the curriculum for students who, like Nathan, require a multisensory approach to support their reading, writing, listening, and speaking skills. The proposed 2024-2025 IEP placed Nathan in a partial inclusion setting such that other than ELA and reading (infra), his core academic classes were comprised of up to 22 students. However, math and social studies are co-taught by a special education teacher and all core classes are supported by EAs trained in language-based methodologies. Special education teachers and EAs in the inclusion setting could “assist [Nathan] with refocusing, redirection and instructional strategies.”[84] The proposed IEP included small group ELA, as well as “a specially designed reading instruction in a small group setting, using . . . one of the methodologies . . . that was recommended by the neuropsychologist hired by the [P]arents, testing accommodations and classroom modifications appropriate for his dyslexia, ADHD and lack of organizational skills,” as well as ESY Reading delivered by special educator (180 minutes/week).[85] Based on the evidence, I cannot find that Parents have established that the 2024-2025 IEP proposed for Nathan with placement in LINC, including ESY, was not reasonably calculated to provide him with a FAPE.[86]
3. 2025-2026 IEP (Seventh Grade)
When Nathan’s annual review occurred on June 11, 2025, the Team had before it the same information as when it developed the previous IEP. Like the 2024-2025 IEP, the 2025-2026 IEP proposed a partial inclusion placement in LINC. In seventh grade, LINC students participate in a co-taught ELA class of 18 to 22 students and an academic support class. Their reading instruction increases to 43 minutes daily but shifts to Wilson, rather than OG. Ms. Morrison, the seventh-grade special educator who co-teaches ELA and teaches the academic support class associated with ELA, social studies, and science, also teaches Wilson reading. Like Ms. McNamara, Ms. Morrison has worked closely with Landmark in the development of LINC. Also, like Ms. McNamara, Ms. Morrison ensures that the special educators, general educators, and EAs associated with LINC are familiar with students’ profiles and the methodologies that would benefit them. Ms. Morrison’s testimony evinced a deep and broad understanding of the components of a strong language-based program.
The 2025-2026 IEP proposed goals in Reading, Writing, and Math, and maintained the wide range of appropriate accommodations from Nathan’s previous IEPs. In addition to the daily reading class, the IEP included a daily Academic Support class (43 minutes) in the C-Grid, providing LINC students the opportunity to engage with a special educator, supported by an EA, in language-based strategies to preview and review work for inclusion and co-taught core academic classes. Academic support in the B-Grid was proposed for each academic class, 5 x 40 minutes per cycle each in ELA and Math (the co-taught classes), and 5 x 15 minutes per cycle in history and science. The IEP also proposed ESY Reading (4 x 180 minutes per week).
Ms. Coman described the multisensory, language-based instruction she observed in a seventh-grade Academic Support class. Her only concern about the class was the appropriateness of the cohort for Nathan. At Hearing, the educators who worked with those students disagreed with Ms. Coman’s characterizations of the cohort; in any event, because Ms. Coman observed seventh grade while Nathan was still in sixth, these students would not have attended classes with him. Dr. Engelman’s observations of the Academic Support class she observed the following year were similar to Ms. Coman’s; she described witnessing the use of multiple language-based strategies and executive function supports.
At Hearing, Ms. Morrison described the explicit multisensory strategies she employs in her reading instruction, which align with the recommendations from Dr. Engelman’s 2023 report.[87] After observing reading, Dr. Engelman acknowledged that many language-based techniques were used, but she expressed concern that not enough of the time was spent on decoding and fluency.
Ms. Morrison and Ms. Bethel, the ELA co-teacher, both testified about their close collaboration and the language-based approaches used in LINC ELA. Ms. Coman observed an ELA class where students rotated among stations. She did not believe the peer-editing activity would be appropriate for Nathan, but again, she had not observed him in an educational environment or spent time with him beyond her 45-minute screening. Dr. Engelman also observed the ELA class proposed for Nathan, where she too saw students rotating among stations, completing multisensory activities. She expressed concern about the absence of additional language-based strategies and the pace of the class. I credit the testimony of Ms. Morrison and Ms. Bethel, as each of them separately described extensive language-based approaches and provided context for the lesson Dr. Engelman had observed.
Dr. Engelman opined that LINC would not allow Nathan to spend sufficient time on skills such as decoding, fluency, and spelling, because too much time was spent previewing for co-taught and inclusion classes. Yet she praised the language-based strategies used in the Academic Support classes in which the previewing took place. Dr. Engelman expressed concern that the LINC cohort proposed for Nathan would not be appropriate due to other students’ lower cognitive abilities, but most of the students carry diagnoses similar to Nathan’s, and I credit the testimony of Ms. Morrison regarding their presentation and functioning, as she works with them every day. One of Dr. Engelman’s concerns about LINC for Nathan was that he would become frustrated in a general education classroom,[88] in part because he had spent over two years in a one-to-one setting. However, in her 2026 evaluation, Dr. Engelman recommended that Nathan continue at Sally Borden despite the fact that he attended science in an inclusion setting there, and despite never having observed Nathan at Sally Borden or in any other educational environment. Moreover, the evidence shows that LINC aligns with Dr. Engelman’s recommendation that Nathan be placed in a language-based program across the curriculum, with accommodations such as frequent breaks, cues for attention, access to fidgets, and incorporated executive function strategies. The size of co-taught and inclusion classes in seventh-grade LINC, approximately 18 to 22 students, does not align with Dr. Engelman’s recommendation for small classes, but the staffing and support available in these classes emerges as appropriate for Nathan, particularly in combination with the daily Academic Support and Reading classes proposed, and in light of his ability to manage inclusion science at Sally Borden.[89] The weight of the evidence demonstrates that LINC inclusion classes incorporate multisensory activities and extensive visuals.
I conclude that Parents have not met their burden to prove that the 2025-2026 IEP was not, and is not, reasonably calculated to provide Nathan with a FAPE in the LRE.[90] Like the 2024-2025 IEP, the 2025-2026 IEP incorporated Dr. Engelman’s recommendation for a language-based program comprised of students with profiles similar to Nathan’s, staffed by professionals trained in working with such students. The evidence shows that language-based strategies are utilized throughout the day in the LINC program, as the LINC staff, trained by Landmark, employ multisensory approaches and ensure explicit, systematic, and direct instruction. The extensive language-based supports available in co-taught and inclusion LINC classes, coupled with Nathan’s success in inclusion at Sally Borden, support this conclusion.
Because Parents failed to prove that the 2025-2026 IEP proposed by Foxborough was not reasonably calculated to provide Nathan with a FAPE, I do not reach the question of whether Sally Borden was appropriate for him.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
After reviewing the record in its entirety in the context of relevant case law, I conclude that Parents have met their burden to prove that Foxborough failed to propose an IEP and placement for Nathan for the 2023-2024 school year that were reasonably calculated to provide him with a FAPE. Parents have not, however, met their burden to prove that in the totality of the circumstances, their unilateral placement of Nathan at LBA for the 2023-2024 school year was appropriate. They are, therefore, not entitled to reimbursement for that placement. I conclude, further, that Parents have not met their burden to prove that the IEPs and placements proposed for Nathan for the 2024-2025 school year, summer of 2025, and 2025-2026 school year were not reasonably calculated to provide him with a FAPE. Therefore, I do not reach the question of the appropriateness of the unilateral placements made by Parents for said periods of time.
So ordered.
By the Hearing Officer: [91]
/s/ Amy M. Reichbach
Dated: August 5, 2026
Footnotes
[1] “Nathan” is a pseudonym chosen by the Hearing Officer to protect the privacy of the Student in documents available to the public.
[2] The Hearing Request also sought attorney’s fees.
[3] I have carefully considered all evidence presented in this matter. I make findings of fact with respect to the documents and witness’ testimony, however, only as necessary to resolve the issues presented.
[4] The evaluation consisted of a parent interview; record review; clinical interview of Nathan; Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Second Edition (BRIEF-2), Behavior Assessment System for Children-Third Edition (BASC-3); Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing, Second Edition (CTOPP-2); Rey Osterrieth Complex Figure Test; Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System (D-KEFS), select subtests; Grooved Pegboard Test; Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – Fifth Edition (WISC-V); Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning – Third Edition (WRAML-3); Gray Oral Reading Tests, Fifth Edition (GORT-V), Form A; and the Woodcock-Johnson IV Test of Achievement, Form A (Woodcock-Johnson). (P-11)
[5] Recommended general considerations and classroom accommodations for Nathan included structure and consistency, to do lists, reduction of novelty by providing templates and scripts, teaching strategies that support emotional regulation, and reducing options. Classroom recommendations included one-to-one discussion with the teacher prior to independent work, check-ins, multiple choice rather than open-ended questioning, visual schedules, graphic organizers, sentence starters, sensory and movement breaks, praise to effort, preferential seating, reduced distraction workspace, editing checklists, technology, extra time, and a calculator. Dr. Evans also recommended at-home supports. (P-11)
[6] Neither exhibits nor testimony elucidated the difference between LBC and LBA.
[7] As the Center Director, Ms. Palazzetti oversees all students’ instruction and operations in the Learning Center. She began with LBC as a clinician in 2018, while she was working towards her Bachelor’s degree. Ms. Palazzetti graduated from college in 2020 and joined Lindamood-Bell in Massachusetts in July 2023 as a consultant and Acting Associate Center Director, then became Center Director in November 2023. Ms. Palazzetti is not certified as a teacher in Massachusetts, but she holds a Master’s degree in Education and is certified in elementary education in Tennessee. She spent two years teaching at a charter school, where no special educators were on staff. Because more than half of her students were on IEPs, professional development included special education topics, and Ms. Palazzetti took one class in special education during her Master’s program. (P-51; Palazzetti, I: 163, 185-88)
[8] The District considered Nathan’s cognitive scores from Dr. Evans’ report rather than conduct its own psychological evaluation. (Ferraro, II: 415)
[9] The OT evaluation consisted of direct observation and administration of the Sensory Processing Measure (SPM); Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency, Second Edition (BOT-2); and the Developmental Test of Visual Perception, Third Edition (DTVP-3).
[10] In addition to the CELF-5, the speech and language evaluation consisted of informal methods (observation within the test setting, communicative interactions, and review of outside evaluations).
[11] Accommodations included structured movement breaks; access to alternative seating; specific motor movements; fidgets or hands tools; separate, quiet setting; small group; study carrel; frequent, brief supervised breaks; graphic organizers/checklists/reference sheets for assessments; transition warnings; encouraging prompt initiation of tasks; extra time for written tasks and assessments; gaining Nathan’s attention prior to giving instruction; breaking down steps of novel motor tasks; providing visual/verbal pairing of information; maintaining attention by calling on him and providing check-ins; text to speech for math and “STE” (undefined) assessments; access to audio books; comprehension check-ins; allowing requests for clarification and repetition; and text to speech for writing assignments.
[12] Foxborough received Parents’ rejection on July 6, 2023. (P-16; S-7). At Hearing, Foxborough special education teacher Erica McNamara acknowledged that some information may have erroneously been omitted from the IEP, including the length of the six-day cycle and the number of 15-minute OT consultations per month, and that Parents may not have known from the service delivery grid how many minutes of each service would be delivered by a special educator as opposed to a general educator or EA. Ms. McNamara testified, however, that the first two issues were likely discussed at the Team meeting, and that parents could always contact the Team with inquiries. (McNamara, III: 624-25, 646-49)
[13] Rose Ferraro, a Foxborough Team chair, testified that a student’s Team could reconvene at any time and consider adjusting services if a student were struggling or not making progress, to consider additional testing, and/or per the request of a parent. (Ferraro, II: 406-08)
[14] Parents’ letter was dated August 16, 2023. (P-18; S-7)
[15] In addition to clinicians, LBA employs evaluators, scorers, mentors, and consultants who, respectively, conduct learning ability evaluations; score those evaluations; provide professional development to new staff members; and oversee instruction, decide when students are ready to advance, and write lesson plans. Each role requires a bachelor’s degree in any subject; evaluators receive a week and a half of training, then conduct evaluations alongside more seasoned evaluators before administering their own. (Palazzetti, I: 200-03)
[16] Dr. Engelman holds a Master’s degree in Education, with a focus on learning disabilities, and a PhD in Education, with a focus on special education, educational administration, and educational psychology. She has maintained a private practice since approximately 1988 wherein she conducts academic and cognitive assessments and program observations. Dr. Engelman estimated that she has administered well over a thousand assessments; she conducts approximately 70-80 assessments a year, and at least 50-60% of the students she assesses have language-based learning disabilities. She has observed public and private programs throughout Massachusetts, including language-based programs, and has assisted several school districts in establishing their own language-based programs. Dr. Engelman’s professional experience includes teaching at the elementary and middle school levels, including special education. She also served as the director of a university disability services office. Dr. Engelman once held Massachusetts teaching certifications, but they expired more than 25 years ago. (P-52; Engelman, II: 262-70, 349-57)
[17] Dr. Engelman administered the WISC-V; WRAML-3; D-KEFS; Woodcock-Johnson; CTOPP-2; Phonological Awareness Test- Second Edition (PAT-2: NU); LAC-3; GORT-5, Form B; Gray Silent Reading Test (GRST), Form B; Test of Written Language (TOWL-4), Form B; KeyMath-3 Diagnostic Assessment (Keymath-3 DA), Form A; BRIEF-2; BASC-3; and Social Responsiveness Scale-Second Edition (SRS-2). (P-22)
[18] Dr. Engelman testified that Nathan struggled with digraphs and diphthongs on the PAT-2:NU, but because he was beyond the age intended for the instrument, this assessment could not be scored. (Engelman, II: 288-89)
[19] As with the 2023-2024 IEP, some information may have been omitted erroneously from the 2024-2025 IEP, such that Parents may not have known from the service delivery grid how many minutes of each service would be delivered by a special educator as opposed to a general educator or EA, but this information was likely discussed at the Team meeting and available to Parents had they contacted the Team to ask. (McNamara, III: 646-49)
[20] Ms. McNamara has a Master’s degree in Education and is pursuing a second one with a focus on curriculum and instruction. She holds Massachusetts teaching licenses in elementary education and special education, moderate disabilities, pre-K to 8, and has worked as a teacher or in special education support since 2013. Ms. McNamara has engaged in extensive professional development over the last five years focused on language-based programming, including Landmark trainings on vocabulary, decoding, phonics, executive function and writing (including “From Talking to Writing,” a writing program developed by Landmark); OG trainings on small group practice (associate level); a three-day Wilson training; trainings on Empowering Writers, a writing program used by LINC; and trainings within Foxborough around executive functioning and IEP writing. (S-23; McNamara, III: 564-71)
[21] As an educational psychologist in private practice, Ms. Coman conducts educational evaluations and program evaluations, approximately 95 percent of which are requested by parents or their attorneys or advocates. She conducts approximately 20 school observations a year, most pursuant to parents’ requests, and has been doing so for the last 12 years. Ms. Coman holds a Master’s in Education in school psychology with a specialization in developmental disabilities, and an Educational Specialist degree, which allowed her to become licensed as a school psychologist in Massachusetts. Prior to her current role, Ms. Coman worked as a podcast host, clinical coordinator, director of learning support services, school psychologist, clinical research coordinator, regional program manager, patient education specialist, consulting school psychologist, and research coordinator. In these positions, among other things, she conducted neuropsychological evaluations and school consultations for individuals with autism and related conditions and assisted private school staff in understanding accommodations listed on students’ IEPs. (P-53; Coman, I: 111-15, 144)
[22] Ms. Coman’s observations will be divided by grade, with this section limited to observations pertaining to the sixth-grade LINC program.
[23] At Hearing, Ms. Coman indicated that it was not clear when and how often Ms. McNamara typically pushes into LINC Science. (P-30; Coman, I: 121-22)
[24] Ms. Morrison holds a Master’s degree in Education and Massachusetts licenses in moderate disabilities (5-12) and middle school English (5-8). She has worked as a special education and inclusion teacher for 17 years, and in these roles provided pull-out Wilson reading for students with reading disabilities and for students who were English language learners. (S-23; Morrison, III: 661-63)
[25] Ms. Morrison testified that the special education math teacher uses language-based strategies in math lab as well. (Morrison, III: 705-05)
[26] Ms. Bethel holds a Master’s of Education degree, with a concentration in middle school education, and Massachusetts licenses in middle school English (5-8) and Humanities (5-8). She has been teaching for 19 years and currently teaches seventh grade ELA at Ahern. During the 2025-2026 school year, Ms. Bethel taught two general education classes and co-taught two inclusion classes, in addition to co-teaching the LINC ELA class with Ms. Morrison and an EA. (Bethel, IV: 733-36)
[27] Ms. Morrison testified that according to her academic testing, Nathan’s word reading scores were in the average range, and there was no indication of a math disability. His reading fluency was in the low range due to his pace, and his writing scores were also in the low range, specifically in the areas of fluency and spelling. (Morrison, III: 697-98, 721-23)
[28] Ms. Coman testified that the information she requested from Ms. Quinn following her observation included the profiles of peers enrolled in LINC, but she did not receive those profiles. Ms. Coman’s email itself shows only that she asked, “what student profiles of students are eligible for LINC.” (P-29; Coman, I: 147)
[29] A long-term substitute was teaching this class, as Ms. Morrison was on maternity leave. (P-30; Morrison, III: 718)
[30] Dr. Engelman missed the first few minutes of the class period, so she could not explain how the lesson began. (Morrison, II: 334)
[31] Dr. Engelman also expressed concern that one proposed peer’s IEP includes an autism diagnosis. I note that this IEP is for a student who was in sixth grade during the 2025-2026 school year and who did not appear to be part of the LINC program. Ms. Morrison confirmed at Hearing that this student attends her reading pull-out but is otherwise not part of LINC. (P-49; Engelman, II: 344-45)
[32] Ms. Brower also holds a Master’s of Education degree but she is not a licensed teacher. She has served as Director of the Sally Borden since August, 2024, in which role she oversees student admission, enrollment, screenings, and discipline; interprets neuropsychological assessments to create snapshots with specific accommodations and learning plans for individual students; develops and implements curriculum; meets with parents, supervises staff, and collaborates with the administrative team; facilitates community events; and represents Sally Borden at IEP meetings to share updates about students. Prior to her current position, Ms. Brower held several different roles within parochial schools. (P-55; Brower, III: 447, 449-56, 518, 525-26)
[33] Sally Borden refers to such classes attended by both Sally Borden and “traditional” students as “integrated.” (Brower, III: 493)
[34] The assessment consisted of the Phonological Awareness Screening Test (PAST); Quick Phonics Screener (QPS); San Diego Quick Assessment; Test of Written Spelling (TWS); Quick Spelling Screener; DIBELS 8th Edition, Oral Reading Fluency (ORF); DIBELS 8th Edition, MAZE; and SBP Writing Sample. (P-49; Brower; III: 503-04)
[35] See Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 62 (2005).
[36] As Parents have not alleged procedural violations, I limit my analysis to the substantive components of a FAPE.
[37] 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A).
[38] See Endrew F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist., 580 U.S. 386, 401, 403 (2017); D.B. v. Esposito, 675 F.3d 26, 34 (1st Cir. 2012).
[39] See 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9), (26), (29); 603 CMR 28.05(4)(b); Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 201 (1982); Lessard v. Wilton Lyndeborough Coop. Sch. Dist., 518 F. 3d 18, 23 (1st Cir. 2008); In Re: Student v. Arlington Public Schools, BSEA #2503543 (Kantor Nir, 2024). Similarly, Massachusetts FAPE standards require that an IEP be “reasonably calculated to confer a meaningful educational benefit in light of the child’s circumstances” and designed to permit the student to make “effective progress.” See CMR 28.05(4)(b) (IEP must be “designed to enable the student to progress effectively in the content areas of the general curriculum”); C.D. v. Natick Pub. Sch. Dist., 924 F.3d 621, 624-25 (1st Cir. 2019) (cert denied).
[40] Esposito, 675 F.3d at 34 (internal citations omitted).
[41] See 34 CFR 300.324(a)(i-v); Esposito, 675 F.3d at 34; N. Reading Sch. Comm. v. Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, 480 F. Supp. 2d 479, 489 (D. Mass. 2007).
[42] Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 402.
[43] Id. at 403.
[44] 20 U.S.C § 1412(a)(5)(A); 34 CFR 300.114(a)(2)(i); M.G.L. c. 71 B, §§ 2, 3; 603 CMR 28.06(2)(c).
[45] 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A); C.D., 924 F.3d at 631 (internal citations omitted).
[46] C.G. ex rel. A.S. v. Five Town Comty. Sch. Dist., 513 F.3d 279, 285 (1st Cir. 2008).
[47] Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 401.
[48] Roland M. v. Concord Sch. Comm., 910 F.2d 983, 992 (1st Cir. 1990) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
[49] See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(C)(ii); Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Dept. of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 369-70 (1985); In re: Uma, BSEA #2103885 (Reichbach, 2021); see also Schoenfeld v. Parkway Sch. Dist., 138 F.3d 379, 382 (8th Cir. 1998) (“Reimbursement for private education costs is appropriate only when public school placement under an individual education plan (IEP) violates IDEA because a child's needs are not met.”).
[50] See 34 CFR 300.148.
[51] See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(C)(ii); Sch. Union No. 37 v. Ms. C., 518 F.3d 31, 34-35 (1st Cir. 2008); Diaz-Fonseca v. Puerto Rico, 451 F.3d 13, 31 (1st Cir. 2006).
[52] See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(C)(ii).
[53] See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(C)(ii); Burlington, 471 U.S. 359 at 369-70; Schoenfeld, 138 F.3d at 382; In re: Uma; In re: Medfield Public Schools, BSEA #077260 (Crane, 2007); see also Florence Cnty. Sch Dist. Four v. Carter ex rel. Carter, 510 U.S. 7, 15 (1993) (Parents who place their children unilaterally “are entitled to reimbursement only if a federal court concludes both that the public placement violated IDEA and that the private school placement was proper under the Act” (emphasis in original)); Mr. I. v. Maine Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 55, 480 F.3d 1, 24 (1st Cir. 2007) (observing that district court did not employ the wrong standard in finding that the private school in which parents had unilaterally placed the student was not an appropriate private school placement under the IDEA because it did not offer the special education services that had been recommended for her). In addition to this standard, there is a notice requirement that is not in issue in the present matter. See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(C)(iii).
[54] See Florence Cnty., 507 U.S. at 13-14; Mr. I., 480 F.3d at 23-24; Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d 356, 364-65 (2d Cir. 2006).
[55] See Mr. I., 480 F.3d at 24 (noting that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit had explicitly rejected such argument in Rafferty v. Cranston Pub. Sch. Comm., 315 F.3d 21, 27 (1st Cir. 2002)).
[56] Berger v. Medina City Sch. Dist., 348 F.3d 513, 523 (6th Cir. 2003).
[57] Ms. S. ex rel. S.S. v. Bd. of Educ., 231 F.3d 96, 105 (2d Cir. 2000) (abrogation on other grounds recognized by Khanimova v. Samuels, 2026 WL 456507, at * 2 (2d Cir. 2026)); see, e.g., M.H. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 685 F.3d 217, 254 (2d Cir. 2012) (upholding hearing officer’s conclusion that unilateral placement was appropriate, because although mainstreaming opportunities “were not abundant at the alternative placement,” the facility was located within a mainstream school and student participated in two non-academic inclusion classes, whereas opportunities for mainstreaming within the proposed public school placement would have been limited); M.S. ex rel. Simchick v. Fairfax Cnty. Sch. Bd., 553 F.3d 315, 327 (4th Cir. 2009) (Lindamood-Bell’s restrictive nature was properly considered as one factor in determining whether a unilateral placement was appropriate); Rafferty, 315 F.3d at 26-27 (where student made progress in reading after spending four to five hours a day, five days a week alone with a clinician working on reading, court upheld hearing officer’s determination that the placement was not appropriate, as the student “was not in a mainstream classroom and did not receive instruction in major subject areas”).
[58] See Pinn ex rel. Steven P. v. Harrison Cent. Sch. Dist., 473 F. Supp. 2d 477, 482 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (court considered this “strong evidence” that the private placement was not appropriate for student, also noting that Hearing Officer had found little evidence in the record that the private placement had met his educational needs).
[59] 757 F.3d 1173 (11th Cir. 2014).
[60] See id. at 1183-84. Here, the school psychologist had recommended one-to-one instruction in several academic areas, the alternative program used the same textbooks used in the public school, the program was administered by a special education instructor who had spent many years teaching in the school district, and school district witnesses conceded that the student did, in fact, receive some educational benefit from the alternative program. See id.
[61] See Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65.
[62] See Mr. I., 480 F.3d at 24-25.
[63] Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 115 (2d Cir. 2007) (emphasis in the original) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).
[64] Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65.
[65] See Doe v. East Lyme Bd. of Educ., 790 F.3d 440, 452 (2d Cir. 2015); see also, e.g., C.L. v. Scarsdale Union Free Sch. Dist., 913 F. Supp. 2d 26, 37-38 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (observing that aspects of the private placement highlighted by parents’ experts, such as small class size and enhanced access to teachers, are the kind of advantages that might be preferred by all parents (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115 (“Indeed, even where there is evidence of success, courts should not disturb a state's denial of IDEA reimbursement where, as here, the chief benefits of the chosen school are the kind of educational and environmental advantages and amenities that might be preferred by parents of any child, disabled or not.”); L.W. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 825 F. Supp. 3d 246, 253-54 (S.D.N.Y. 2026) (where student had been diagnosed with multiple emotional and behavioral disorders and past evaluators had recommended supports to help her remain on task, manage her emotions, and improve her social interactions, a program that offered remedial academic instruction to all students, but did not offer counseling or other therapeutic interventions and had no expertise in providing special education and support services to students with emotional and behavioral diagnoses was not “specially designed to meet her unique needs, supported by such services as are necessary to permit her to benefit from that instruction”); Khanimova, 2026 WL 456507, at * 2 (“gap between the services recommended” in the IEP and the services provided by the private school support the hearing officer’s conclusion that parent has not met her burden to show that private school “rendered the services necessary to permit [student] to benefit from its educational instruction” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).
[66] East Lyme Bd. of Educ., 790 F.3d at 452.
[67] See R.L., 757 F.3d at 1183-84.
[68] See D.C. ex rel. E.B. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 950 F. Supp. 2d 494, 513 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).
[69] See S.C. v. Katonah-Lewisboro Cent. Sch. District., 175 F. Supp. 3d 237, 263-65 (S.D.N.Y. 2016), aff’d sub nom. J.C. v. Katonah-Lewisboro Cent. Sch. Dist., 690 F. App’x 53 (2d Cir. 2017). In S.C., the Court observed that the hearing officer had relied, appropriately, on the opinion of an expert who had observed the student in the one-to-one setting about the appropriateness of such a setting for him. See id.
[70] Roland M., 910 F.2d at 992.
[71] See Rowley, 458 U.S. at 201; Lessard, 518 F. 3d at 23.
[72] See Burlington, 471 U.S. at 369-70.
[73] Ms. Palazzetti’s testimony regarding her observations and LBA’s internal evaluations is the only evidence of Nathan’s progress during the 2023-2024 school year.
[74] Berger, 348 F.3d at 522.
[75] See Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115; Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65.
[76] See Doe, 790 F.3d at 452; C.L., 913 F. Supp. 2d at 38; Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115.
[77] See M.H., 685 F.3d at 254; Green v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 2008 WL 919609, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2008).
[78] See Matrejek v. Brewster Cent. Sch. Dist., 471 F. Supp. 2d 415, 428-30 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (although the student made progress in reading while unilaterally placed, the evidence showed that reading was not his only issue; he had significant attention deficits, speech deficits, and problems completing work. The alternative placement’s failure to address these weaknesses rendered it inappropriate for the student).
[79] See M.S., 553 F.3d at 327 (observing that Lindamood-Bell is a highly restrictive placement by IDEA standards, and that Lindamood-Bell’s restrictive nature was properly considered as one factor in determining whether a unilateral placement was appropriate under the IDEA); D.B. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 966 F. Supp. 2d 315, 338 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (where student’s IEP reflected the need for social interaction but unilateral placement only allowed him to interact with peers for approximately three of the 35 hours of services he received per week and did not provide the OT or PT services that had been recommended for student, parents failed to meet their burden to prove it appropriate).
[80] See Matrejek, 471 F. Supp. 2d at 428-30; see also L.K. ex rel. Q v Northeast Sch. Dist., 932 F. Supp. 2d 467, 489-90 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (where student had sensory processing and executive function difficulties and OT and PT needs, and evidence showed that he suffered from anxiety, had difficulty with peer interaction, and “needed a highly individualized program that offered structure and support for his executive functions,” court upheld hearing officer’s conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to show that private placement specifically addressed these needs); In Re: Tali & Leicester Public Schools, BSEA #043982 (Byrne, 2004) (while witness described Lindamood-Bell “as an intensive foundational language intervention program, she acknowledged that the Lindamood-Bell program is not a school, [and] does not provide . . . access to non-disabled peers,” and there was no evidence in the record that Lindamood-Bell “provided the type and amount of services recommended by educational evaluators”).
[81] See C.L., 913 F. Supp. 2d at 37-38 (disputing expert’s testimony that a co-taught model would not necessarily target a student’s specific disabilities, as having an aide in a mainstream class could help address student’s executive functioning and other issues).
[82] I note that to the extent Mother testified that Parents rejected the IEP, in part, because they were concerned that Nathan might receive services from someone other than a special education teacher, his clinicians at LBA were not certified as teachers, much less as special education teachers.
[83] See C.L., 913 F. Supp. 2d at 37-38 (attributing diminished weight to the opinions of an expert as to how a student would perform in a mainstream classroom with special accommodations, where the expert had never observed the student in a mainstream classroom).
[84] See Matrejek, 471 F. Supp. 2d at 427.
[85] See id.
[86] See Rowley, 458 U.S. at 201.
[87] Dr. Engelman’s 2026 evaluation contained similar recommendations, but because it was not available for consideration by the Team at the time the 2025-2026 IEP was proposed, I do not rely on it here.
[88] Dr. Engelman also observed an inclusion social studies class, which she believed would be overwhelming for Nathan, in part because she did not witness language-based strategies such as preview of vocabulary and examples of what would be expected.
[89] See C.L., 913 F. Supp. 2d at 37-38.
[90] In reaching this conclusion, I do not rely on Dr. Engelman’s January 2026 evaluation, as stated in footnote 87, above, or the District’s spring 2026 three-year reevaluation, as they were not completed nor presented to Foxborough at the time any of the IEPs here at issue was proposed.
[91] The undersigned Hearing Officer is grateful for the diligent assistance of legal intern Olivia Syat in the preparation of this Decision.