COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Student v. BSEA# 2606767
Boston Public Schools
DECISION
This decision is issued pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 USC 1400 et seq. (hereafter IDEA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 USC 794), the state special education law (MGL ch. 71B), the state Administrative Procedure Act (MGL ch. 30A), and the regulations promulgated under these statutes.
On December 19, 2025, Parent filed the instant Request for Hearing and the matter was scheduled for January 23, 2026. Following one request for postponement of the Hearing, granted for good cause, the Hearing was held remotely on March 10, 11 and 13, 2026, before Hearing Officer Rosa I. Figueroa. Those present for all or part of the proceedings were:
Parent
Michelle G. Scavongelli, Esq. Parent’s Attorney
Gregg Katz, Esq. Parent’s Attorney
Maria Smith, Esq. Parent’s Attorney
Laura Wood, Esq. Parent’s Attorney
Jill Pineda, Ph.D. Licensed Psychologist, Achieve New England
Andrea R. Hendershott, M.S,. Ed.D, BCBA, LABA Director of Patient Services and Consultation, Proven Behavior Solutions
Marianne M. Peters, Esq. Attorney for Boston Public Schools
Sarah Moore General Education Teacher, Clap Elementary School, Boston Public Schools
Page Mulry School Psychologist, Clap Elementary School, Boston Public Schools
Susan Lovett Clinical Coordinator and School Social Worker, Clap Elementary School, Boston Public Schools
Lisa Hannaford Program Director for Applied Behavior Analysis, Boston Public Schools
Brooke Rizzo Program Director for Applied Behavior Analysis Clap Elementary School, Boston Public Schools
Collin Case Emotional Impairment Strand Specialist, Ruth Baston EI/TLC, Boston Public Schools
Erin McLaughlin Chief Executive Officer, South Shore Autism Center
Carol Kusintz Court Reporter, Veritext Court Reporting
The official record of the hearing consists of documents submitted by Parent and marked as exhibits PE-1 to PE-53, exhibits submitted by Boston Public Schools (Boston or District) and marked as exhibits SE-1 to SE-32, and recorded oral testimony.
The Parties requested a postponement until April 15, 2026, for the purpose of submitting closing arguments, which was granted for good cause. Boston’s written closing argument was received on April 15, 2026, and Parent’s on April 16, 2026. The record closed on April 16, 2026,[1] upon receipt of the Parties’ closing arguments.
ISSUES FOR HEARING:
1. Whether the IEPs and placements offered by Boston during the 2023 – 2024, 2024-2025 and 2025-2026 school years were reasonably calculated to offer Student a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE); if not,
2. Whether Student is entitled to public funding for a day placement in order to receive a FAPE.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES:
Parent’s Position:
Parent asserts that Boston has never provided Student a FAPE or accommodated his needs, resulting in his failure to make meaningful progress. None of the IEPs offered by Boston has been reasonably calculated to confer meaningful educational benefit to Student as his complex social-emotional needs cannot be appropriately addressed in a full inclusion program, with or without the support of a one-to-one paraprofessional.
Student is smart and with proper interventions can thrive in a setting that offers appropriate integrated therapeutic supports. He requires a setting where he can learn to manage his emotions and behaviors so that he does not need to depend on his one-to-one paraprofessional.
In Boston, absent appropriate programming, Student has not learned to tolerate frustration, understand/ take the perspective of others, or demonstrate the ability to self-regulate independently. Moreover, Parent is gravely concerned about Student’s eloping and aggressive behaviors which she asserts place him in great danger, seriously compromising his safety.
Parent seeks funding for an out-of-district therapeutic placement that offers small group instruction, with a similar cognitive/ academic cohort, staffed by trained professionals that can offer in-the-moment therapeutic interventions and supports inclusive of ACT, DBT and CBT techniques, throughout the day and across settings.
Boston’s Position:
Boston disputes Parent’s allegations, asserting that it has offered Student appropriate IEPs specifically designed to meet his needs in the least restrictive environment. Moreover, despite Parent’s rejection of the IEPs proposed since 2022, Student has made effective, demonstrable progress, having mastered the goals and objectives in his IEP some time ago. Boston asserts that any deficiency in Student’s programming has been the result of Parent’s rejection of IEPs and services designed to meet his needs as he progressed toward and met his IEP goals. This includes Parent’s rejection of IEPs offered since 2024 that increased therapeutic interventions and faded support by Student’s one-to-one paraprofessional.
Boston declines Parent’s request for funding of an out-of-district therapeutic placement in favor of a full inclusion program with therapeutic interventions and supports, asserting that the data amply supports its position.
Lastly, Boston concedes that during the 2022-2023 school year it failed to offer Student direct ABA services as a result of staff shortages, but notes that this issue was resolved between the Parties and that Student was offered compensatory services to make-up those sessions.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. Student is a twelve-year-old seventh grader, entitled to receive special education services through Boston. He is described as a bright, friendly, polite, outgoing, curious, silly boy who loves to make everyone laugh (PE-8; PE-22; Moore). He enjoys reading, cooking/ baking, playing video games and watching television (PE-37; SE-3).
2. Student has been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (Autism), anxiety and a specific learning disability in written expression, with deficits in spelling and essay composition, and he has a history of emotional and behavioral dysregulation (PE-2; PE-36). He also possesses many cognitive and personal strengths.
3. Student began receiving educational services in the ASD strand classroom at the Jackson Mann Elementary School in Boston in 2019, when he was diagnosed with Autism. At the time, Student presented with significant dysregulation; his behavioral issues included hitting others, leaving the classroom without permission, crying, throwing objects and eloping. The school placed locks on doors to prevent him from leaving the building, and Parent placed a GPS tracker on Student’s clothing in case he did leave the building (Parent). Student’s frequent bolting and aggressive behaviors in 2019 required development of a safety plan supervised by the school psychologist and consultation services for implementation of a behavior support plan by a BCBA (PE-3).
4. Since 2019, Student has also received approximately 15 hours weekly of private in-home ABA services which have proven helpful to him (Parent).
5. In testing conducted by Boston during the fall of 2019, Student demonstrated strong phonemic awareness and above grade level ability to read and comprehend text (PE-3). At the time,
6. In December of 2021, Boston conducted a three-year re-evaluation. At the time of the evaluation Student’s IEP provided for educational services in an inclusion setting with behavioral supports. Academic testing showed Student’s abilities to fall solidly in the average range across domains per the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT)- Fourth Edition (PE-5). The evaluator noted that Student struggled with higher level cognitive demands requiring critical thinking or synthesizing information which triggered behavioral dysregulation at times. Caitlin Albano, M.Ed., educator and related service provider in Boston, noted in the District’s three-year educational evaluation report that Student often became aggressive or bolted as a measure of task avoidance (PE-5).
7. A speech and language (S&L) evaluation was performed by Bing Shaw, M.A. CCC-SLP, as part of the December 2021 re-evaluation. The Pragmatic Profile, Pragmatic Activities Checklist of the CELF-5, and selected assessments from the Social Thinking Dynamic Assessment Protocol were administered. Resulting low average and average scores suggested that Student did not need speech and language services as he did not demonstrate pragmatic language deficits (PE-6). Instead, Mr. Shaw recommended that given Student’s high level linguistic skills, he would benefit from participation in a social skills group with students who presented with similar profiles (PE-6).
The Occupational Therapy evaluation was conducted by Jacqueline Pirie, MS,OTR/L, who recommended OT services “with a focus on visual perception and fine motor skills with a specific focus on written production” to improve writing legibility (SE-7). She also recommended access to fidget items and sensory motor activities throughout the day to address his sensory needs (PE-7).
Student’s psychological assessment was conducted by Phoebe Goodwin M.A., Ed.S., School Psychologist. Ms. Goodwin administered the Weschler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fifth Edition (WISC-V), Behavior Assessment System for Children, Third edition (BASC-3) -Teacher Report, Autism Spectrum Rating Scale (ASRS)- Parent Report, Gilliam Autism Rating Scale, Third Edition (GARS-3)- Teacher Report, and the Roberts Apperception Test for Children, Second Edition (Robert- 2). Ms. Goodwin found Student’s cognitive abilities to fall within the average range (102 FSIQ in the WISC-V), but noted that he presented “with a disability in the form of Autism, based on his rigidity to routines, difficulty accepting limits, and difficulty understanding the feelings of others when social outcomes and consequences are unexpected”, for which he required special education services (PE-8).
Elizabeth Noyes, M.A. and Phoebe Goodwin conducted a Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA). At the time of this evaluation, Parent did not report any behavioral concerns, but in school he was leaving the school space (bolting), made unexpected vocalizations and displayed aggression toward adults. The evaluators recommended implementation of a function-based positive behavior intervention plan (BIP) and access to Cognitive Behavior Therapy (CBT) with his school counselor, to work on self-regulation strategies (PE-9).
Lastly, according to Student’s Franciscan Hospital counselor, Ashley King, when in a heightened emotional state, Student exhibited physical signs through body language such as clenching his fists, and he had difficulty accessing self-regulation strategies in those moments.
8. Boston convened Student’s Team on December 20, 2021. (PE-10; PE-11; PE-12; PE-13; PE-16). The Team found Student eligible under the category of Autism and offered him participation in a full inclusion program at the Jackson Mann School, which operates on a five-day cycle (PE-10; PE-11; PE-12; PE-13; PE-14; PE-15; PE-16). The following services were reflected in the Service Delivery Grid: A grid- monthly 160-minute Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) consultation, and monthly fifteen-minute occupational therapy (OT) consultation; B grid- five, 60 minutes sessions per week of self-regulation; five, 50 minute sessions per week of reading/writing; five s 50 minute sessions per week of math; five, 120 minute sessions weekly of ABA services; and six hours daily one-to-one paraprofessional support starting on February 9, 2022 (PE-10; PE-16). The C grid listed one, thirty-minute session of counseling/ therapeutic support. The IEP also offered multiple accommodations as well as a BIP that targeted bolting, aggression and self-injurious behaviors (PE-15). E Extended school year (ESY) services targeting self-regulation skills, reading/ writing skills, math skills, OT, ABA and offering one-to-one paraprofessional were further proposed (PE-10; PE-16).
9. Student’s Team reconvened on February 9, 2022 (PE-16; Parent). Parent shared concerns regarding availability of staff to provide ABA services when the specialist was out and having an interim plan to keep Student safe until a one-to-one paraprofessional was hired (SE-16). She was further concerned that Student was having meltdowns, cried a lot, walked away and was having great difficulty with changes in routine. She described the 2021-2022 school year as Student’s worst year (Parent).
10. Via letter dated February 28, 2022, Parent partially rejected the IEP and consented to the full inclusion placement at Jackson-Mann K-8 School (PE-10; PE-13; PE-17). Specifically, Parent rejected the plan’s failure to increase services for the period during which the one-to-one paraprofessional hiring process was underway; lack of make-up services for the three weeks during which ABA services was not provided; decrease in OT services; that math and OT goals be revised to reflect 80% across the board; that provision of the one-to-one paraprofessional in the grid correspond to specific goals and specify the type of personnel; fading plan for the one-to-one services until such time as a new evaluation recommends it and parent accepts it (PE-17). Parent further requested funding for an independent evaluation, and that the one-to-one paraprofessional selected be a person that remains patient and does not raise their voice. Lastly, Parent requested that the Parental Concerns section of the IEP reflect that Student “often bolts out of the school and escapes into a dangerous intersection” and that despite having BIPs for several years, his BIP during the previous year had been ineffective (PE-17).
11. In February 2022, Jennifer Aites, MD, at Boston Children’s Hospital recommended that Student be provided school and home ABA therapy services (PE-2).
12. Student’s Team at Jackson Mann Elementary School reconvened on June 15, 2022 (PE-18). The Team discussed Parent’s concerns regarding an increase in Student’s self-injurious behaviors and comments regarding suicidal/ homicidal ideation (PE-18; Parent). Parent was frustrated that missed ABA services had not been made up, and was concerned about ESY services, the one-to-one not having started yet, and Student’s transfer to a new school the following year (PE-18). The school principal wanted Student to start at Roger Clap Elementary School the following year with his one-to-one paraprofessional in place and worked with Parent to identify Mr. Derek Roman, the individual who would become Student’s one-to-one paraprofessional for the following several years (Parent).
13. Student attended fourth grade at the Roger Clap Elementary School (Clap) during the 2022-2023 school year. He received one-to-one paraprofessional support from Mr. Roman with whom he had a close, positive relationship (PE-22). Boston contracted with South Shore Autism Center to provide ABA services to Student, but these services were paused in the spring of 2023, and would not resume until months later (Parent, McLoughlin).
14. In December of 2022, Parent reported regression in self-regulation skills, while Student’s December 15, 2022, Progress reports document growth in some areas (PE-19; PE-20; PE-21; PE-22). The BCBA reported that ABA services had been interrupted as a result of staff shortages, thus, she could not opine on Student’s behavioral progress. She noted that progress would be assessed and a compensatory services plan would be developed once a provider was identified (PE-21). The Social Worker remarked on Student’s positive relationship with Mr. Roman, and noted that Student had been an active participant in weekly counseling and was able to communicate his preferences and desires, but struggled to describe upset feelings; he had friendships in school but did not always understand the nuances associated with problem-solving or social interactions (PE-22). The progress report for OT notes that Student made excellent progress, and achieved his objectives. Once per week half hour of OT service was recommended for the school year but not during the ESY (SE-19). Growth was also reported by his academic teacher who noted that Student worked hard at building relationships with students and adults. Moreover, despite not having received ABA support, he demonstrated “ability to independently select 1 strategy (out pf pre-taught calming strategies) and use it within 30 seconds for 3 out of 5 moments” (PE-20).
15. Student’s Team reconvened on December 19, 2022, for the annual review (PE-23). The teachers noted Student’s excellent attendance and responsiveness to staff, as well as his academic progress and increased ability to initiate tasks independently and follow classroom routines and activities (PE-23). The Team found Student eligible for special education services under the category of autism and recommended IEP services and placement in a full inclusion program at Clap with ESY (PE-23; PE-24). The Key Evaluation Results note regression in self-regulation skills and lack of ABA services accounting for Student’s difficulty completing work and refusal to access accommodations such as speech to text technology. The plan included goals in reading and writing, social/ emotional/ behavioral skills, fine motor/ visual motor planning, counseling, and executive functioning skills for the period from 12/20/ 2022 to 12/20/2023 (PE-23).
16. The IEP offered Student 120 minutes per month of ABA and thirty minutes per month of OT consultation in grid A. The B grid includes five, 60-minute sessions weekly of self-regulation; 2 hours daily of reading/writing; five, 60-minute sessions of executive functioning services; five, 120 minutes sessions of ABA services; and, six hours daily one-to-one paraprofessional support in the general education setting. The C grid listed counseling/ therapeutic support 30 minutes per week and 30 minutes weekly of OT. (Clap runs on a five-day cycle.) This IEP also offered numerous accommodations and ESY services (PE-23; PE-24; PE-25).
17. On February 7, 2023, Parent accepted the full inclusion placement at Clap Elementary School and partially accepted the proposed program (SE-1D). The rejection involved: a request for public funding of an independent evaluation; specificity as to what goal the one-to-one paraprofessional is responsible for in the service delivery grid; and emphasized the harm caused to Student by the interruption in the ABA services and request for immediate plan to hire a provider so that Student can receive the ABA services to which he is entitled (SE-1D). This IEP has remained Student’s stay put IEP through present day.
18. On April 24, 2023, Boston wrote to Parent conceding the District’s interruption in the provision of Student’s ABA services due to staffing shortages. Boston informed Parent that direct and consultative missed services would be provided to Student on a compensatory basis when a provider was identified (PE-26).
19. On June 1, 2023, Parent, through her representative, wrote to Boston demanding immediate resumption of Student’s five hours per week direct ABA services by an ABA specialist, and BCBA support to develop an ABA plan for him. The letter noted an increase in Student’s aggressive behaviors. Parent further inquired as to the status of the independent evaluation which request had been made on April 23, 2023 (PE-27).
20. Student’s Progress Reports for the period ending in June of 2023 note generally, continued progress toward meeting his reading/ writing, social/ emotional/ behavior and counseling goals, while having met his OT goal (PE-31).
Regarding the social/ emotional/ behavior and the counseling goals, the report notes that during the 40 school days during which data had been collected by his one-to-one paraprofessional,) see yellow below; used calming strategies and refrained from engaging in aggressive behaviors 83% of the time; “independently demonstrate[d] 2 on-task behaviors for the duration of the classroom activities in 78% of measured opportunities”; and in 95% of measured opportunities regulated while remaining in the classroom (PE-31). In 89% of measured opportunities, Student was also able to name a feeling and the reason for feeling that way, and he responded appropriately to adult redirection without engaging in negative behaviors in 2 out of 3 opportunities and could name his strengths and weaknesses during circle time in 3 out of 4 opportunities (Id). He was visually upset twice and after teacher check-ins, was able to get through the moment by sitting quietly at his desk and within fifteen minutes was able to resume working. This report notes that Student has friends in this class. The ABA specialist noted that Student was demonstrating strong self-regulation skills and had a positive response to class expectations and routines, independently accessing self-regulation strategies to remain on task during non-preferred activities and appropriately requesting breaks as needed. By this reporting period he had met his goal to keep hands to himself when angry, anxious or frustrated and independently accessed at least one self-regulation strategy. He followed directions, was quiet, remained on task with no more than two verbal reminders, asked for breaks as needed, could verbalize/ name at least one feeling and provide the reason.[2]
With respect to academics, the report notes progress toward meeting his reading/ writing skills goal, but difficulty “accepting constructive feedback and implementing suggested edits which impact the clarity and completeness of his writing. He bec[ame] withdrawn and visually annoyed” (PE-53). Giving him a choice was a positive approach to getting him to accept suggestions. The counseling goal report reflects that Student was engaging in the counseling process, demonstrating increased ability to identify triggers, manage frustration, awareness of consulting trusted adults when needed, and was evidencing growth with self-advocacy skills (PE-53). Similarly, Student was evidencing growth in his executive functioning skills goals responding well to clear and positive feedback, and being provided a checklist, although not consistently as at times, he continued to struggle accepting feedback becoming overwhelmed, angry or withdrawn. He continued working on test-taking skills and speed of completion (PE-53).
21. Student attended fifth grade at Clap Elementary School in a full inclusion program for the 2023-2024 school year, during which time his IEP Team convened three times.
22. In the fall of 2023, Erin McLaughlin, Ph.D., CEO of South Shore Autism Center began supervising the Boston BCBA providing ABA services to Student; later that year she took on the responsibilities of Boston’s BCBA (McLaughlin).
23. Student’s Team convened on December 11, 2023, to conduct his annual review. The Team proposed an IEP covering the period 12/20/2023 to 12/20/2024, with Student’s continued placement in a full inclusion program at Clap (PE-28; SE-1C). The IEP included goals in the areas of reading writing, social/ emotional/ behavioral, counseling, executive functioning, and self-regulation. The Service Delivery Grid in this IEP offered Student 120 minutes per month of ABA consultation, and 30 minutes monthly occupational therapy (OT) consultation in Grid A. The B Grid included: one hour daily of self-regulation services and one hour daily of executive functioning services; 2 hours weekly, of ABA services and 2 hours weekly reading/writing services; and six hours daily one-to-one paraprofessional support in the general education setting. The C Grid called for thirty-minutes per week of counseling/ therapeutic support. ESY services were further offered. (PE-28; SE-1C).
24. At the December 2023 Team meeting, the BCBA noted that Student had made some progress toward his self-regulation goal, but still depended on his paraprofessional as the primary responder during periods of dysregulation to access calming strategies that he was not yet able to access independently. The BCBA reported that all staff were well versed on his safety plan to address elopement/ bolting, and they supervised him closely at all times (PE-28; SE-1C). The BCBA expressed her desire to communicate and collaborate with Student’s home ABA service provider (PE-28).
Student’s counselor reported on Student’s appropriate response to adult redirection, feedback and compliance with directives, noting his ability to name and describe emotions, their cause and improved response to unexpected social consequences through better communication with peers and adults. It was reported that he met his executive functioning goal by demonstrating the ability to work independently on an assignment while remaining on task for 10 to 15 minutes at a time. He was working at grade level in reading while making “excellent progress towards his reading/ writing goals” (PE-28). By teacher report, Student was partially meeting grade expectations in math and demonstrated “commendable advancements” in meeting his OT goals. The teachers further noted that he was able to remain in class when frustrated or upset (PE-28). This IEP notes that Student was not at risk for bullying as he is well liked by his peers. His one-to-one paraprofessional indicated that Student’s cohort was understanding when he became upset and some students would go out of their way to see that he was alright (PE-28;
SE-1C).
25. Parent did not respond to this IEP and Boston continued to implement the 12/20/2022 to 12/20/23 IEP, Student’s stay put IEP, for the remainder of Student’s fifth grade (SE-1C; SE-1D).
26. On May 16, 2024, Rachel Duffy, MS, BCBA, LABA, South Shore Autism Center, conducted a Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) of Student, and issued a report targeting aggression and elopement behaviors[3], which behaviors interfered with Student’s ability to access the curriculum (PE-29). Ms. Duffy concluded that Student’s behaviors were “maintained by aversive demands or situations” he was trying to escape to access a preferred activity. She recommended a Behavioral Support Plan (BSP) that focused on self-advocacy skills, tolerance for delay or denial of a request, and independent use of coping strategies (PE-29; PE-30). Training of individuals working with Student was recommended to ensure implementation of the plan with fidelity. Ms. Duffy stressed the importance of home-school communication (PE-29).[4]
Ms. Duffy developed a Behavior Support Plan for Student dated May 21, 2024, aimed at decreasing aggression (hypothesized function: escape) and elopement (hypothesize function: escape/ attention), while increasing self-advocacy, toleration of a delay or denial, and independent use of coping strategies behaviors (PE-30; SE-8; Parent).
27. Susan Lovett, Social Worker, Boston, certified in CBT, with 28 years of experience working with students with social/emotional impairments, began working with Student when he was in the fourth grade and continued to work with him in the fifth grade (Lovett). Their work focused on developing self-regulation and peer interaction skills. In the fourth grade she helped Student identify emotions and appropriate responses to stressful situations. She categorized Student’s progress in fourth grade as significant as he gradually engaged in counseling and began to implement self-soothing concepts across settings. Ms. Lovett’s work with Student during fifth grade focused on dysregulation brought about by incidents of frustration, disappointment or the behaviors of his cohorts (Lovett). She explained that dysregulation in Student manifested as, moving his body back and forth, clenching his fist, raising his voice and saying “I don’t want to” looking as someone who is angry. She offered Student CBT noting that he was beginning to implement self-regulation skills more independently and with less adult facilitation (Lovett). She reported that fifth grade went better for Student as he matured and classes were calmer (Lovett).
28. Student completed sixth grade at Clap during the 2024-2025 school year (PE-35). He participated in inclusion classes with 16 students that followed a co-taught model for core courses. The classrooms were staffed by a general education teacher, special education teacher, and a paraprofessional. Student was also assisted by his one-to-one paraprofessional, Mr. Roman, and by a South Shore Autism Center behavior technician two hours per day including during gym (PE-36).
29. At Parent’s request, Jill Pineda, Ph.D., clinical psychologist at Achieve New England (CV at PE-51), performed Student’s Integrated Neuropsychological Evaluation on September 11, 2024 (PE-35). She administered the Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual Motor Integration, Sixth Edition(BMI-6), Behavioral Assessment System for Children, Third Edition (BASC-3) (Parent, teacher and student’s self-report), Child and Adolescent Memory Profile (CHAMP), Connors Continuous Performance Test, Third Edition (CPT-3), Delis Kaplan Executive Function System (DKEFS) (selected subtests), NEPS Y-2 Comprehension of Instructions, Social Responsiveness Scale, Second Edition (parent report), Weschler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fifth Edition (WISC-V), and the Weschler Individual Achievement Test, Fourth Edition (WIAT-4). Dr. Pineda also conducted a parent and student interview, behavioral observations during the evaluation and reviewed the available educational records and previous evaluation reports (PE-35). At the time of this evaluation, Student was reportedly having meltdowns at home and in school (Pineda).
30. Dr. Pineda did not observe Student in school or at any setting other than her office, and she did not speak with any of Student’s service providers or teachers; she only received feedback from school through the BASC-3 teacher report completed by Student’s one-to-one paraprofessional (Pineda).
31. Dr. Pineda’s evaluation report, dated November 8, 2024, notes that Student put forth good effort during the evaluation. He demonstrated largely intact attention to task skills, appropriate social awareness and good social reciprocity in conversation, no safety concerns, age appropriate expressive and receptive language skills (although he struggled to “explain big picture concepts”), and was able to identify his emotions despite struggling to elaborate why. His results on the WIAT-4, WISC-5, CHAMP, NEPSY-II, CPT-3 and BMI-6 fell within the average to high average range, with only two exceptions where his scores fell in the low-average range and he scored in the superior range on Orthographic Fluency in the WIAT-4. On the BASC-3, Parent reported clinically elevated scores in Student’s attitude toward school and hyperactivity (although she shared no concerns about hyperactivity), and both hers and the BASC teacher form rated Student within normal limits in the areas of Conduct Problems, Anxiety, and Depression, with no rating falling within the clinically significant range. Student rated himself in the at-risk range for locus of control, anxiety, atypicality, sense of inadequacy, and he rated himself within the normal limits in all other areas of functioning, reporting that he has friends in school (PE-35). Parent further indicated that Student had good attentional skills, and his mood is generally happy. At the time of Dr Pineda’s evaluation, Parent had no concerns regarding suicidality. (Pineda).
32. Student evidenced some difficulty in expository writing during the evaluation when he was asked to hand-write a one-page essay about a given topic (PE-35). Dr. Pineda noted that Student “became tearful, emotional, and began to shut down, hitting himself in the head several times. He began crying and reported ‘I don't know how to start an essay’ and became unresponsive to questions. He was given time to calm and then only appeared willing to write an essay if he could type his responses, an accommodation given to him in school where he is allowed to use the computer for writing assignments. Student’s essay included a clear introductory statement, complete sentences, and three reasons why he liked the game (Mario Kart), but it lacked an appropriate paragraph structure (numbered items), transition words, and a concluding sentence”, with evidence of poor punctuation, formatting and some spelling errors (PE-35). Dr. Pineda testified that she diagnosed Student with a learning disability in writing based on “her clinical skills and judgment”, as informed by Student’s “emotional/ behavioral regulation, that tell me writing is clearly an underdeveloped skill…” (PE-35; Pineda).
33. Dr. Pineda recommended that Student participate in a year-round therapeutic program designed for students with social-emotional needs (including anxiety, mood and emotional dysregulation), mild autism, and shared cognitive profiles, within a small instructional setting. According to Dr. Pineda, failure to place Student in a therapeutic program would result in development of more significant depression, anxiety and an increase disruptive and self-injurious behaviors. She recommended that academic instruction be delivered by a special education teacher with emphasis on a structured writing curriculum and offer assistive technology assistance (PE-35). Therapeutic supports and social skills programming should be embedded throughout all aspect of the program, and staff must be trained in mental health issues. She recommended Student’s participation in a social skills group and the use of collaborative problem solving. She further endorsed development of a trusting, therapeutic relationship with a counselor who possessed expertise in dealing with individuals presenting with anxiety, counseling sessions twice per week for 30 minutes each, as well as outside counseling that used CBT (PE-35). Dr. Pineda also recommended gradual fading of the one-to-one support, explaining that if Student’s program provided the requisite therapeutic interventions, he would not need a one-to-one paraprofessional to support him. She supported moving from direct ABA services to a consultation model where an on-site BCBA supervised school staff and paraprofessionals for 30 minutes per week on implementation of a BIP. Direct executive-functioning instruction and home support were also recommended. Dr. Pineda encouraged open communication between home and school (PE-35).
34. In cross-examination Dr. Pineda conceded that her diagnosis of Other Specified Anxiety Disorder was inconsistent with Parent’s, Student’s and the District’s opinions. In hindsight she could have administered additional rating scales to measure anxiety, such as the MASC (Pineda). She further conceded that she was wrong in assuming that absent placement in a therapeutic program, Student’s depression, anxiety, self-injurious behaviors, school refusal and disruptive behaviors would worsen, as none of those assumptions came to fruition by 2026 (Pineda). Dr. Pineda nevertheless remained steadfast in her recommendations for increased therapeutic services. She testified that the therapeutic supports needed to be embedded in Student’s program as he could not have a one-to-one paraprofessional holding things together for him all his life. (She was not aware that Boston had consistently offered to decrease one-to-one paraprofessional support and increase therapeutic services, or that there had been any changes in Student’s behavior after his one-to-one paraprofessional services had been faded during the extended evaluation at Ruth Baston in 2025.) Dr. Pineda has had no further involvement with Student since September 2024 (Id.).
35. In response to Parent’s October 22, 2024, request for funding of independent evaluations, Boston forwarded a list of independent evaluators who accepted Massachusetts rate setting rates consistent with the Massachusetts Division of Health Care Finance and Policy Regulations (DHCFP), 114.3 CMR 30.00, and 603 CMR 28.04(5)(a) (PE-33). Additionally, on November 4, 2024, Boston consented to funding an FBA for Student (not exceeding \$2,352.72) (PE-34).
36. At Parent’s request, Andrea R. Hendershott, M.S. Ed.D, BCBA, LABA, of Proven Behavior Solutions (CV at PE-50), performed a Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) on November 6, 2024, inclusive of a two-and-a-half-hour observation of Student. She also interviewed Parent and spoke with Sarah Moore, special education teacher and Student’s learning specialist at Clap (PE-36).
37. Ms. Hendershott observed Student during a co-taught ESL class, science, gym class and lunch, collecting data involving aggression, elopement, property destruction, touching peers and requesting breaks (PE-36).
38. Ms. Hendershott’s December 2, 2024, report notes that Student’s most challenging subjects are gym and music. According to Ms. Hendershott, during her observation Student displayed an incident of aggressive behavior toward another student in gym class and once during recess, both incidents involving playful interactions likely seeking social attention; he responded well to staff redirection (PE-36). She noted that Student had made positive strides practicing functional coping skills and requesting breaks.[5] Ms. Hendershott shared Parent’s concerns regarding aggression and elopement opining that said behaviors interfered with his ability to learn, posed serious safety concerns and unattended, made him vulnerable to skill regression. She recommended that Student be supported through a year-round highly structured therapeutic social emotional learning program. This program should be led by a special education teacher and a mental health clinician (PE-36). Student’s social emotional needs should be met through “an Evidence based, explicit, systematic model of instruction to build foundational coping skills” with a “Behaviors Skills Training approach …to teach new social and emotional repertoires” inclusive of social skills training through group participation (PE-36).
39. Ms. Hendershott opined that instead of executive functioning skills, Student’s IEP should focus on self-management skills. She based her opinion on Dr. Pineda’s neuropsychological evaluation which found Student’s working memory, sustained attention, processing speed and cognitive flexibility to be intact (PE-36). She recommended promoting Student’s independence by fading one-to-one paraprofessional support in favor of developing self- management skills and behavioral health through small group instruction, with weekly one hour consultation from a BCBA. She too stressed the importance of effective home/ school communication for continuity of services across settings through a daily log, weekly check-ins and monthly consultation (PE-36).
40. Student’s three-year re-evaluation took place between late October and December of 2024.[6] The evaluation included an ABA evaluation, a psychoeducational evaluation, Educational Assessment Parts A & B, and an OT assessment. (SE-2; SE-3; SE-4; SE-5).
41. Hieu Le performed Student’s OT evaluation on November 8 & 20, 2024 (SE-2). Ms. Le assessed Student’s then current functioning levels for visual, motor, sensory, and functional school skills. She found Student’s visual motor skills to fall in the average range per the Beery-Buktenica Development Test of Visual-Motor Integration (VMI) and average to below average on the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (BOT-2). Student demonstrated appropriate writing skills across domains in the WOLD Sentence Copying Test (WOLD). Ms. Le noted that Student came to the evaluation willingly, initiated conversation with her and maintained good eye contact throughout the evaluation. No fluctuations in his motivation or attention were observed, he could follow one-step directions, was cooperative, sweet, did not display sensory seeking or avoidant behaviors and took pride in his work (SE-2). He was observed to ambulate through his environment with awareness of people and objects, could change position from sitting or standing without support, and understood classroom expectations, routines, and the use of tools and materials. He corrected his work independently and his written communication was legible. Ms. Le noted Student’s great progress including having met his OT goals. As such, she recommended that OT services be discontinued (SE-2).
42. On October 29 and 31, and November 4, 5, 12, 14, and 15, 2024, Ms. Mulry performed Student’s psychoeducational evaluation (SE-3). She administered selected subtests of the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, 3rd Edition (KTEA-3), the Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales, Second Edition (RIAS-2), reviewed records, interviewed Parent and school staff, and observed Student in the classroom (using the Woodcock-Johnson, Third edition Classroom Observation Form). Parent completed the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function, Second Edition (BRIEF-2), and Student’s teacher completed the (BASC-3) and the Behavior Intervention Monitoring and Assessment System (BIMAS). Student’s cognitive scores ranged from the average to below average range. During the observations, he exhibited intermittent engagement in class benefiting from prompts during transitions by the teacher and paraprofessional, taking breaks, and the use of fidget tools. The BASC-3 showed clinically significant elevated scales for aggression, adaptability and internalizing problems (including anxiety and depression), and at-risk results in the social skills and leadership domains (SE-3). Student’s teacher, Ms. Hepburn, noted that Student “responds well to predictable routines, posted instructions (i.e., directions, checklists, visual scheduled with change noted, page numbers posted). He uses nonverbal cues to ask for the bathroom or water, which sometimes serves as a break for him. He checks in with Mr. Roman, his one-to-one, particularly to make a plan for historically challenging classes like music and PE. In terms of specific behavioral and or emotional concerns, Student has left the building this year in moments of frustration/ anger. He has also had incidents of putting hands on staff members. These behaviors are worse when his one-to-one paraprofessional is not in the building” (SE-3;
SE-6). The BRIEF-2 reflected elevated scores for executive functioning and the BIMAS for emotional and behavioral regulation difficulties. Parent reported concerns with Student’s ability to self-regulate and independence. Ms. Mulry also spoke with Ms. Lovett, Student’s counselor, who noted that while Student had initially been resistant to counseling, he had gradually become more open to and engaged in it. Since the start of the school year, Student had received ABA services to address elopement and aggression by helping him access self-regulation strategies, identifying his emotions and the reasons for the emotions, and increase on-task behaviors. His BCBA reported that the data collected suggested that Student was making progress toward his goals (SE-3). Ms. Mulry recommended adding therapeutic consultation to Student’s IEP and increasing therapeutic support to two, 30 minutes sessions per week (SE-3; Mulry).
43. Ms. Mulry testified that Student had evidenced a lot of significant behaviors in the past, but has made significant progress. She explained that owing to his disabilities, he is expected to engage in off task activities and take longer to recuperate after moments of anger or frustration (Mulry).
44. Student’s BSP was updated by Kelly Lee, MA ED, BCBA, LABA on November 18, 2024. The same targeted behaviors were maintained (SE-10).
45. On December 6, 2024, Ms. Rizzo, MS, BCBA, LABA (CV at SE-32C) performed Student’s ABA evaluation, inclusive of a record review, administration of the Adaptive Behavior Skills Assessment and observations across settings, including the classroom, gym class, recess, the school yard and the cafeteria (SE-4). She specifically considered cooperation and reinforcer effectiveness, discrimination skills, communication skills, play and leisure skills, social skills and classroom participation and group instruction response, finding that Student’s skills were fluent across most areas, with a handful of areas where his skills were emerging or developing[7] (SE-4). Ms. Rizzo observed Student to work and complete ELA tasks independently, signal to leave the class to use the bathroom or to get a drink of water by using the appropriate hand signals when he needed to leave the room, and returned to the class in an appropriate amount of time, independently transitioning in the classroom. Familiar with the hand signals, his teachers were aware of him leaving the room (Rizzo). He appeared engaged and happy during a structured gardening activity completing his work and talking to friends, and incidents of touching during interactions with peers while engaged in the gardening activity and recess were playful in nature and not aggression. Ms. Rizzo noted that in comparing Student’s then current presentation to the evaluation performed in 2021, he was more independent across skill areas, and he had the necessary skills to access the classroom environment. Ms. Rizzo was of the opinion that the level of services Student was receiving was inappropriate given his skill level; he no longer needed direct ABA skill development services. Instead, she recommended BCBA consultation related to Student’s behavioral safety plan. She raised concern about Student becoming more dependent on his one-to-one paraprofessional, something which warranted the Team’s consideration (Rizzo).
46. Ms. Rizzo opined that Student would be safe without one-to-one paraprofessional support because there was always other staff available to assist him, he was capable of accessing the outside world, he possessed the safety awareness to be in the community, and responded to redirection by an adult and to the “stop” command when he left an area (Rizzo; Hannaford).
47. Ms. Moore completed the Educational Assessments Part A & B, noting Student’s growth in accessing the supports provided by Boston, and his interest in technology which he uses well for both academic and personal tasks (SE-5). The report states that Student has strong social skills and a core group of friends with whom he enjoys working. He enjoys reading, can sustain his engagement in reading independently and can discuss grade level text appropriately. When emotionally and behaviorally regulated he displays age-appropriate communication skills; when dysregulated, he uses profanity at a rate higher than his peers. His academic and social growth over the school year was notable (SE-5).
48. Ms. Moore testified that Student feels deeply and that things that were difficult for him felt difficult, but his emotional presentation is not interfering with his ability to make academic progress because he has and utilizes a repertoire of coping strategies (Moore).
49. Ms. Lovett testified that by the 2024-2025 school year, Student’s sixth grade, he presented as much happier, had friends and reveled in the fact that he could make others laugh and hold their attention. His confidence increased, he became more independent, including in accessing self-regulation tools, and he was able to resolve conflict more efficiently (Lovett). To self-regulate Student would step aside, count to 10, breathe, request to take a break, and he knew that he could turn to adults to ask for help (Lovett). Student maintained a positive relationship with adults whom he perceived as being there to help him. Ms. Lovett testified that in sixth grade Student did not engage in meltdowns or big behaviors, including vocalizations, despite times when he was observed to be disappointed, evidenced by him putting his head down (Lovett).
50. Student also became less dependent on his one-to-one paraprofessional during sixth grade. who began sitting in the back of the room, off to the side, and supported the whole classroom without needing to interact significantly with Student. Ms. Lovett described Student’s trajectory during sixth grade as a “straight-up arrow”; Student was thriving in Boston (Lovett).
51. In the fall of 2024, Student received ABA support and behavioral interventions during gym class, a non-preferred activity for him, consistent with the BSP that addressed aggression and elopement (SE-8). Dr. McLoughlin testified that elopement for Student meant standing up and walking out of a space without permission as opposed to “running full speed” (McLaughlin). She testified that in the fall of 2024, Student was responding well to the interventions and would follow the plan and as needed, step away from the group and sit when he needed to take a break (McLoughlin).
52. Student’s Team convened on December 12, 2024, for his annual review and to discuss evaluation results (PE-37; SE-1B). The Team disagreed with Dr. Pineda’s recommendation for placement in a therapeutic program given Student’s measurable progress, including academic progress with standardized scores placing him at the 49th percentile in reading and 40th percentile in math, Ms. Le’s OT findings, and his progress with self-regulation skills when compared to how he presented in previous years (Mulry). Progress was also reported by the Clap staff based on their observations of Student throughout the day in various settings, such observations in contrast to Dr. Pineda’s “snapshot” view of Student (Mulry; Moore; Lovett). Ms. Lovett was surprised, given Student’s progress toward independence and self-confidence at Clap, that anyone would recommend that he be placed in a more therapeutic setting. She wholeheartedly disagreed with Dr. Pineda’s view that Student was not being “allowed to effectively manage his emotional reactions, implement coping strategies and build independent skills” (Lovett).
53. The Team recommended that Student’s one-to-one support be faded and that this support only be provided as needed, based on progress data, to promote Student’s independence with skill acquisition related to self-regulation. Determinations regarding one-to-one support should focus on periods of the day during which Student displays higher incidences of interfering behaviors such as during gym class and recess when he is more likely to become frustrated while playing a game (PE-37; SE-1B). As such, the Team proposed to discontinue the OT consultation and the two hours of direct ABA services, while increasing therapeutic supports (SE-1B; SE-6; Moore). According to Parent, at the meeting the Team recommended that Mr. Roman be trained to provide Student’s ABA services. Parent was concerned that Student cried a lot, did not respect personal boundaries, touched other people, and could be subjected to bullying (Parent).
54. The IEP for the period from December 12, 2024 to December 11, 2025, proposed that Student participate in a full inclusion program at Clap. that offered the following IEP services: four hours monthly consultation to the general education classroom by the BCBA, and two thirty minute consultations per month by the school counselor pursuant to the A grid.[8] The B grid included one hour daily, self-regulation skills support and one hour daily executive functioning skills development, two hours daily writing services, and six hours daily paraprofessional support for self-regulation skills in the general education setting. Under the C grid, two, half-hour individual counseling sessions per week were proposed (PE-37; SE-1B). The goals in this IEP addressed writing, behavioral/ social/ emotional[9], self-regulation, executive functioning skills, and counseling[10]. Additionally, the IEP offered numerous accommodations (PE-37; SE-1B; SE-6).
55. On January 21, 2025, Parent fully rejected the IEP, including the updated goals and increased therapeutic supports; she declined to provide additional information or participate in a reconvening of the Team to discuss her rejection. She did not respond to the proposed placement offered by Boston. The Team therefore continued to offer Student services consistent with the 2022-2023 stay put IEP (PE-37; SE-1B).
56. In January of 2025, Erin McLoughlin, PhD., BCBA, LABA (CV at SE-32E) became Student’s ABA service provider. She testified that Student was very independent and had mastered all skills targeted in his ABA goal. Despite his independence, and decrease in the challenging behaviors previously tracked, Student continued to receive ABA services including, prompting, positive reinforcement, and feedback consistent with the 2022-2023 stay put IEP. Dr. McLoughlin was surprised that an individual that demonstrated such engagement and independence in the classroom, and who responded to prompts from any adult, continued to receive 10 hours of ABA services in the classroom. She opined that given his progress, it would be appropriate for a special education teacher to implement the BSP and the self-regulation goal (Dr. McLoughlin).
57. On February 5, 2025, Student underwent foot surgery and he remained out of school through March 9, 2025 (SE-9; Parent). Upon returning to school, he wore a cast and later a foot-boot, both of which restricted his mobility for several weeks (Parent). His behavior through the end of the school year showed improvement in the areas targeted by his Behavior Support Plan (BSP) per the data collected (SE-9). Parent attributed some of it to the mobility restrictions placed by his cast/ foot boot (Parent).
58. Ms. Moore, Student’s sixth grade special education teacher, testified that Student had transitioned well into his 6th grade program and had a group of friends. Socially, he presented as a typical 6th grade boy: he was chatty, silly, he played poking games with peers, at times could be distractible, and he enjoyed making his teachers and his peers laugh (Moore).
59. Ms. Moore testified that she was often in Student’s classroom during morning meeting, snack and dismissal, as well as four days per week during ELA and math. There were 18 to 20 students in Student’s 6th grade class, and staffing included herself, a full-time inclusion teacher, a classroom aide and Student’s one-to-one paraprofessional (Moore). Student received executive functioning support services in class for writing and to transition between tasks (Moore).
60. At times, Student became frustrated, mostly during non-preferred activities, but also in the classroom. He would become frustrated if he lost a game or was asked to work on an assignment he thought to be complete. However, Student was able to access coping skills to work through those moments. In the classroom, he did not present as overly frustrated, anxious or sad, and he responded well to adult redirection, becoming increasingly receptive to corrective feedback on academic work as the year progressed. He was able to independently access coping strategies from his repertoire including taking a break, working at a different location or accessing the calm corner in the classroom, and he was able to resume work upon rejoining his class (Moore).
61. Academically, Student demonstrated that he understood concepts, was available to learning and he completed his classwork. By sixth grade his writing was above that produced by peers and his reading skills were solid.
62. Student rarely eloped (i.e., left a space without adult permission) from the classroom during academics. Ms. Moore only observed Student leave his math class once when he became frustrated, but he was redirectable, compliant with adult instructions and able to process his frustration with Ms. Moore. Elopement was more likely to occur during non-preferred activities such as gym class (Moore).
63. The South Shore Autism Center behavior support report notes that by the end of the 2024-2025 school year, Student no longer required visual or physical support to access strategies for programs addressed during his ABA sessions. Similarly, he no longer required additional supports to access coping strategies or prompts to elicit appropriate classroom behavior. Student responded to gestural, verbal and nonverbal cues as prompts for desired skills and behaviors. He was provided defined space options for working and/or for taking a break, and given rewards contingent on the absence of challenging behaviors. The report highlights a safety alert that if Student … is escalated (upset, engages in any of the behaviors listed below)
he is allowed to leave the room/area to take a break if he asks but should be followed and monitored at all times by an adult to ensure he stays in the building and engages in deescalation strategies (SE-7). The report referenced Behavior Support Plan updated in June of 2025 for the full description of behaviors, as well as preventative and response strategies inclusive of emotional check-ins during ABA sessions (SE-7).
64. On May 28, 2025, Lisa Hannaford, an ABA program director in Boston (CV at SE-32B), observed Student across multiple settings, seeing no challenging behaviors and noting that he presented as behaviorally and academically engaged, independently followed whole group and individual instructions, was socially engaged with his peers and participated appropriately in group activities (SE-11). Ms. Hannaford collected data finding that Student was on task 70% to 75% of the time during academics (ELA and math), whereas randomly selected peers used for comparison were on task 30% to 80% of the time (SE-11). She concluded that Student’s on-task behavior was equivalent or slightly higher than his classmates. During the observation Ms. Hannaford had to ask Student’s BCBA who Student’s one-to-one para- professional was, as Mr. Roman remained at a distance, not making his role obvious given that Student independently engaged in the classroom instruction (Hannaford).
65. Student’s BSP was updated by Dr. McLoughlin on June 20, 2025 (SE-10). The plan continued to target previously identified maladaptive behaviors, to wit, physical behavior directed toward others or objects (previously tracked as aggression), (hypothesized function escape), and elopement, while increasing self-advocacy skills, toleration of a delay or denial, and independent use of coping strategies. The plan describes changes in routine or schedules as antecedents or triggers to Student’s challenging behaviors and uses reinforcement strategies (including a daily schedule, check-ins and previews of changes in schedule) to promote desired responses, and consequence strategies when behaviors arise (SE-10).
66. Student’s end of the year transcript shows final grades of B in all subjects, except mathematics in which he received a C+ (SE-17).
67. Ms. Hendershott conducted a program observation of two programs Parent was considering for Student at the Ruth Batson Academy (Ruth Batson) on June 12, 2025 (PE-38). Her report, dated June 17, 2025, supported Student’s participation in a 45 day extended evaluation in the Emotional Impairment/ TLC Strand (EI/TLC) at Ruth Batson, which she opined met many of y her December of 2024 recommendations in regard to cohort appropriateness, staff qualifications and training, interdisciplinary approach to learning and instruction, general classroom environment, socio-emotional and behavioral supports, extended school year services and family involvement. As students are ready, participation in general education co-taught classes is available. Students also have access to a wide variety of school enrichment opportunities and activities with support as dictated by their individual IEPs/needs (PE-39). Students in this program follow a class-wide point system, and a tiered system of support and interventions that promotes positive behavior (PE-39). The TLC points rubric focuses on community, accountability, respect and empathy. Restorative justice is used to process incidents with students individually with the support of a staff member, who then recommends steps to repair the harm between the students or recommends disciplinary action (PE-41). Ms. Hendershott recommended that data regarding safe transitions between environments and fading of Student’s one-to-one support be collected during the extended evaluation period (PE-38). Olga Garriga and Julia Pandolfi, Office of Specialized Services Boston, provided supplemental information on Ruth Batson’s EI/TLC program to Ms. Hendershott on July 1, 2025 (PE-39).
68. Throughout the 2022-2023, 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 school years, Student continued to receive home ABA services through Merrimack Valley ABA, three days per week totaling 10 hours weekly (PE-38; Parent).
69. As a result of a Settlement Agreement between the Parties, Student participated in a 45-day extended evaluation at the Ruth Batson EI/TLC program at the beginning of the 2025-2026 school year (SE-14; Parent, Collin Case, strand specialist, Ruth Batson). The evaluation sought to ascertain “[w]hat strategies and specially designed instruction is needed to fade the support of the 1:1 paraprofessional and ensure Student continues to access the general education curriculum with increasing independence? What is the least restrictive environment for Student to succeed in?”, and it also noted that an “educational assessment, behavior assessment, social emotional assessment and executive functioning evaluation are requested at this time” (SE-14). The Settlement Agreement called for a mid-point review of Student’s progress in the extended evaluation setting (PE-40; Case).
70. Student’s transition into the EI/TLC program went smoothly, and Student consistently earned 3 and 4 points in the program’s 4-point system. According to Collin Case, the EI/TLC Strand specialist at Ruth Batson (CV at 32-D), Student was involved in 2 incidents initiated by other peers, not by Student, who continued to earn 4s after the incidents, not engaging the other students. Mr. Case testified that Student made the safe choice even when others did not . While at the EI/TLC program he demonstrated great frustration tolerance growth; he also was not crying in school, despite infrequently having watery eyes when he lost a game or became frustrated (Moore). Student only had one behavioral incident involving frustration during which he kicked a desk and the computer on it fell (Parent).
71. Ms. Hannaford furnished Student’s service providers one hour ABA consultation per month while he was enrolled at the EI/ TLC program. She testified that she frequently saw Student in his classroom setting, and she also conducted formal observations of him in October and November of 2025. Student remained on-task and engaged 90% of the time (SE-13; Hannaford). In the classroom, Student had limited social engagement with his cohort, opting to mingle with other friends in the general education setting during free time. (Ms. Hannaford’s opinion of Student’s presentation during the October observation was significantly different than that later reported by Ms. Hendershott who had also observed Student.)
72. The Team convened on October 16, 2025, for the mid-point review on Student’s extended evaluation, recommending that he complete the 45-day assessment in the substantially separate EI/TLC program (PE-40; SE-15). A structured fading plan of the one-to-one paraprofessional support was discussed as Student remained at the highest tier of the point system and displayed a high level of independence (PE-40). The Team discussed fading of the one-to-one paraprofessional ultimately agreeing to a “gradual, structured, fading plan to ensure continuity and stability” and a fading plan was developed (SE-15; SE-22). Student’s one-to-one paraprofessional was faded without Student exhibiting any increase in behaviors (Hannaford). Some members of the Team, including Mr. Case, supported transitioning Student to a less restrictive setting but this recommendation was not pursued at the time because of the Settlement Agreement (SE-15).
73. On October 23, 2025, Ms. Hendershott conducted an FBA observation at the Ruth Batson EI/TLC program. (PE-41). Ms. Hannaford partook in the observation, and Mr. Case was also present (SE-24). Ms. Hendershott observed Student during a science class taught by a paraprofessional as the teacher was out that day; music, during which another student became dysregulated and hit Student with a xylophone mallet while yelling expletives; a small group social-emotional experiential learning lesson, and history/social studies in the EI/TLC classroom (PE-41; SE-24). Ms. Hendershott concluded that the EI/TLC program was not appropriate for Student because she had not observed in the moment reinforcement of coping skills or check-ups with Student during the music incident (PE-41; Hendershott). She also opined that the cohort was inappropriate, the instructional style in some classes did not invite the use of critical thinking, active problem solving or analytical skills, and the social-emotional experiential learning activity observed did not incorporate a specialized curriculum rooted in ACT, DBT and CBT (PE-41).
74. Ms. Hendershott’s report, dated November 7, 2025, notes that Student transitioned well through different parts of the building during the observation and highlights Dr. Pineda’s findings that Student : has average cognitive abilities (across verbal visual and spatial reasoning, working memory and processing speed); displays intact expressive vocabulary, receptive language skills, understanding of instructions and verbal fluency skills; expresses himself aptly, can follow instructions and generates language quickly and efficiently. She concluded that these factors suggest that he has good potential for learning and for responding to interventions (PE-41). They further suggest that the EI/TLC program was not appropriate for Student. Ms. Hendershott again recommended that Student be placed in a …highly structured therapeutic learning environment in which instruction is led by a special education teacher and licensed mental health clinician. The appropriate placement for [Student] will offer integrated and targeted/specific academic, social, and therapeutic support. [Student] requires access to a peer group with a shared cognitive profile (average cognitive and language skills) where therapeutic supports are infused throughout his school day (PE-41).
75. Ms. Hendershott testified that the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales was the only social or emotional rating scale used in her FBA and she also did not include a teacher rating scale (Hendershott). She testified that she did not perform a home observation as part of her FBA, because Boston’s funding did not include a home observation. She conceded not having taken comparative peer data during her observation and agreed that Student’s current data showed that he is not engaging in aggression or elopement behaviors which had previously been areas of concern to her. Although her report includes information regarding Student’s school behavior progress report, she disagreed with its findings. Ms. Hendershott has not observed Student since he transitioned to the full inclusion program at Ruth Batson (Hendershott).
76. In discussing the incident that occurred at the end of music class, , Ms. Hannaford noted that Student had not initiated the incident and that he had responded appropriately, advocating for himself; he “remained standing, did not escalate or retaliate, and resumed following group instruction as the other student moved away…” (SE-24). As he was transitioning to the next class the EI/TLC strand specialist checked in and Student reported feeling alright and being ready to continue with his class schedule (SE-24).
77. During the extended evaluation Student remained consistently and appropriately engaged in his classes and leisure activities, and followed directions with minimal prompting for attention. Student did not engage in interfering or disruptive behaviors, and positive interactions with peers and staff were observed (SE-24). By the time Student’s Team convened in November of 2025 to review the extended evaluation results, he was not displaying any of the maladaptive behaviors targeted in previous BIPs, as he was effectively accessing Tier 1 therapeutic supports as supported by the data (SE-20; Hannaford).[11]
78. Dr. McLoughlin described Student’s elopement and aggression behaviors as “low grade”. She testified that Ms. Hendershott’s FBA reported an instant of Student hugging a peer as an incident of aggression and also reported that Student had put his hands on a peer 23 times, whereas Boston staff interpreted the instances as within the typical range of behaviors for sixth grade boys. Based on the two-year data collected by Boston, Dr. McLaughlin opined that Student’s programming was working for him and that the Team could probably start thinking about reducing supports because he was demonstrating the ability to do well in a full inclusion setting (McLaughlin).
79. A Parent Consultation Meeting was held on November 3, 2025, including Ms. Hannaford, Ms. Shapiro, Mr. Williams, Mr. Case and Ms. Santos Margaritov (Special Education Director). According to Parent, Student was happy in his placement and she noted improvement in comparison to previous years. School staff reported on Student’s consistently strong participation and self-regulation progress, and the absence of unsafe incidents or interfering behaviors.[12] The Meeting report further notes Student’s emerging self-advocacy skills and stable progress following fading of the one-to-one paraprofessional’s services (SE-25).
80. The Team reconvened on November 12, 2025,[13] to discuss the results of the extended evaluation, including Ms. Hannaford’s recommendations (to wit: that direct ABA services be discontinued, that ABA consultation be increased to focus on increasing Student’s independence and generalization in full inclusion, and fading of Student’s one-to-one paraprofessional).(PE-42; SE-1A; Hannaford). Once again Student was found eligible under disability categories of autism and specific learning disability. Boston offered an IEP and full inclusion placement[14] for the period from November 12, 2025 to November 11, 2026, to address updated goals based on areas of concern raised by Ms. Hendershott, including the use of independent self-regulation techniques, ability to redirect attention, maintaining composure during peer interaction and demonstrating emotional regulation (PE-42; SE-1A; PE-43; Case). This IEP included an ESY component (PE-42; SE-1A; PE-43). Grid A of the Service Delivery grid included four hours monthly consultation by a BCBA, and two, thirty minutes consults monthly by the counselor to the general education classroom (PE-42; SE-1A). The B grid offered one hour daily self-regulation skills instruction; one hour daily executive functioning skills; and forty-five minutes daily reading and writing skills. The C grid proposed two, thirty- minute weekly counseling sessions (PE-42; SE-1A). The IEP also offered numerous accommodations (Id.).
81. In Parent’s opinion, the extended evaluation had not gone well despite Student doing well academically and consistently getting 4s in the point system, because he was not challenged academically and he was already doing the things that he was expected to do prior to entering the program. She noted that Student did not like this placement, had no friends there and did not gain social skills from interactions with his cohort; he was bullied, called names and assaulted 3 times by a classmate (Parent).
82. On November 19, 2025, Parent requested that a police report be filed in response to a peer having assaulted Student in school the previous day, punching him and scratching his face after he declined to fight the aggressor. Pictures of Student show three scratches across his cheek and another under the lip (PE-46; PE-47; PE-48).
83. For the remainder of the 2025-2026 school year (through the date of this Decision) Student has continued to receive services in a full inclusion seventh grade program at Ruth Batson, consistent with his last agreed upon IEP (2022-2023 stay put IEP), inclusive of one-to-one paraprofessional support. Since starting at Ruth Batson Student has not engaged in bolting or aggression incidents (SE-18; SE-19; SE-20; Hannaford).
84. Parent testified that prior to Hearing she had never seen SE-18, the behavioral chart for the period from January to February of 2026 (Parent).
85. Student’s February 12, 2026 report card for the first and second terms of the 2025-2026 school year shows him having earned a B+ and B- in English Language Arts; a B+ and B in history; A- and B in unified science; B+ in visual arts; A and B in fundamentals of music; Pass and A in experiential learning; and a B and D- in algebra (PE-49). The D- in algebra was the result of Student not turning in his homework; by March of 2026, this grade had risen to B- (Case). The First Term transcript also showed a D in Physical Education, but As and Bs in all other subjects (SE-17).
86. Scott Larivee, special education and ELA teacher in Student’s inclusion classroom (CV at SE-32A), described Student as an astute and intelligent boy who conducts himself in an age-appropriate manner. He has become friends with a group of boys in the class and has not had any behavioral incidents. Mr. Larivee testified that Mr. Roman stays in the back of the room and does not generally work with Student at his desk, nor does Student rely on Mr. Roman to stay regulated. Mr. Larivee testified that Student has not cried in the classroom. He referenced two incidents during which Student became frustrated occurred during a writing assignment after being asked to make revisions to his work. Mr. Larivee noted that Student was writing five-paragraphs essays and was “leaps and bounds” ahead of his classmates and he updated the reading and writing goal to better reflect Student’s current functioning, needs and abilities (PE-53). Mr. Larivee opined that the inclusion classroom was the appropriate placement for Student as he met seventh-grade level expectations and his homework and group work was “exceptional” (Larivee).
87. Mr. Larivee testified that he had not observed any horseplay or hands-on behaviors, noting that two of Student’s group of friends cared about each other (Larivee). She further noted that Student was very independent with class work and rarely asked for help (Larivee).
88. Amy Shapiro, school psychologist at Ruth Batson, began counseling Student at the end of October 2025, following the extended evaluation, as Student was transitioning into the full inclusion classroom (Shapiro). She testified that Student was making progress in counseling, and she did not feel that he required more intensive therapeutic supports. Ms. Shapiro noted that she had invited Student to form part of a lunch bunch, but Student had declined, preferring to sit with his friends at lunch. She further testified that she is in Student’s class at least once per week and sees him there, and that he is engaged, completes his work, and appears comfortable socially and with academics (Shapiro). Parent has not reached out to her regarding any emotional concern nor has Ms. Shapiro observed Student to present with increased anxiety, self-injurious behaviors, school refusal or elopement (Shapiro).
89. IEP Progress Reports for the periods from June of 2024 to March of 2026 detail Student’s trajectory toward increased independence and progress in all of his goals (SE-26A; SE-26B; SE-27A; SE-27B; SE-27C; SE-28).
90. Parent was under the impression that Student continued to have episodes of crying in school and had difficulty with transitions. She testified that she had not accepted any IEPs following the 2022-2023 school year IEP, and had no explanation for her rejection of the increase in consultation and therapeutic services offered in 2024. She remains concerned about the possibility of Student bolting into an intersection, Student’s touching/poking people and his safety during transitions (when he has to go from one building to another) (Parent). She believes that Student presents with significant externalizing behaviors in full inclusion settings, but conceded that he was not presenting with aggression toward himself, adults or property, was not eloping and was not making loud vocalizations in his current program (Parent).
CONCLUSIONS
Student in the instant matter is entitled to special education services pursuant to federal[15] and Massachusetts law[16]. IDEA eligible students are entitled to receive a FAPE, through individualized education programs (IEP) tailored to meet their unique needs[17] in a manner “reasonably calculated to confer a meaningful educational benefit”[18] to the eligible student.[19] Moreover, the program and services offered by the school district must be delivered in the least restrictive environment appropriate to meet the individual student’s needs[20], and must be “reasonably calculated to enable [the student] to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” Endrew F. v. Douglas County Sch. Distr., 137 S. Ct. 988, 999 (March 22, 2017); D.B. ex rel. Elizabeth B., 675 F.3d 26, 34 (1st Cir. 2012).
Massachusetts has adopted the FAPE standard delineated in Endrew F., requiring that eligible students be provided with a special education program and services specifically designed to develop the student’s individual educational potential.[21] As such, educational progress is measured in relation to the particular student’s potential.[22]
Parent carries the burden of persuasion in the instant matter, pursuant to Schaffer v. Weast, 126 S.Ct. 528 (2005). That is, in order to prevail, she must prove her case by a preponderance of the evidence. After a review of the instant record in the context of the legal standards delineated above, I find that Parent failed to meet her burden of persuasion, as the evidence supports a finding that the IEPs offered by Boston for the 2022-2023, 2023-2024, 2024-2025 and 2025-2026 school years were reasonably calculated to offer Student a FAPE and allow him to make effective progress in the least restrictive environment.
In rendering my determination, I rely on and incorporate by reference the facts delineated in the Facts section of this Decision, focusing only on the most salient points in my analysis. My reasoning follows.
Student’s diagnoses and areas of need are not in dispute, nor is his need for therapeutic interventions to address self-regulation and behavioral skill deficits. The issues here presented relate to the provision of FAPE, Student’s progress over the past three years, as well as the type of program and placement he requires going forward to increase his independence with self-regulation and safety skills.
Parent asserts that Boston’s programs failed on all accounts and that a full inclusion placement cannot meet Student’s needs. Relying on the recommendations of Dr. Pineda and Ms. Hendershott, Parent seeks funding of a year-round, out-of-district therapeutic placement for Student. In her closing brief Parent raises five main arguments: 1) the evidence shows that the general education setting does not provide Student a FAPE ; 2) credible expert testimony established that Student requires placement in a small therapeutic program with similarly situated peers;
3) Boston IEPs have not been reasonably calculated to confer meaningful educational benefit; 4) were Student to remain in a full inclusion setting he would require one-to-one professional support; and 5) Parent has established that Student requires therapeutic out-of-district placement to access a FAPE.
Boston disputes Parent’s assertions, arguing that it has proposed appropriate IEPs that offer Student participation in full inclusion with therapeutic interventions, which IEPs Parent has rejected. Boston further asserts that available data, documentary and testimonial evidence show that Student has made effective progress commensurate with his abilities in full inclusion with therapeutic interventions (inclusive of BCBA, school counseling, and one-to-one paraprofessional supports), even while implementing a stay put IEP inadequate to meet his evolving presentation. According to Boston, the IEPs for the period from December 2023 to November 2026 are appropriate and constitute the least restrictive setting appropriate for Student.
As discussed below, I find that the evidentiary record in this matter does not support Parent’s position.
I begin by discussing witness credibility and evidentiary weight ascribed to each. Parent relies in large part on the opinions of Dr. Pineda and Ms. Hendershott herein. For the reasons that follow I do not afford Dr Pineda’s or Ms. Hendershott’s opinion as much evidentiary weight as I give Boston’s witnesses. Dr. Pineda did not observe Student in the school setting or any setting other than her office; she did not speak with any of Student’s teachers or service providers, and the only information she obtained from Boston was through the BASC-3 teacher report completed by Student’s one-to-one paraprofessional (Pineda). Moreover, Dr. Pineda never updated her evaluation or observed Student in the full inclusion program currently proposed for him. In cross examination, Dr. Pineda conceded that none of the dire predictions she made in 2024 (i.e., as to what would happen were Student not to be placed in the year-round therapeutic day program she recommended) had come to fruition despite provision of services to Student under a stale 2022, stay put IEP.
Regarding Ms. Hendershott, the only social or emotional rating scale used in her FBA was the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, which did not include a teacher rating. She did not perform a home observation (noting that Boston had not funded one) and did not take comparative peer data during her school observations. Moreover, while she observed Student in the EI/TLC program, which he attended as a result of a settlement agreement between the Parties, she did not observe him in the full inclusion program actually proposed by Boston (Hendershott).
In contrast, Boston’s teachers and service providers offered insightful, candid and credible testimony in their areas of expertise. Many of them had worked with Student for several years, truly knew him and could offer longitudinal perspective on his progress. Moreover, they relied on data from testing combined with observations across settings excepting the home. I found compelling both Ms. Mulry’s statement that owing to his disabilities, Student is expected to engage in off task activities and take longer to recuperate after moments of anger or frustration, and Ms. Hannaford’s statement that progress is not perfection and that areas of growth still exist and need to be worked on pursuant to his IEP. Dr. McLaughlin, Ms. Mulry, Ms. Hannaford, Ms. Rizzo, Mr. Larivee, Ms. Moore, Ms. Lovett, Mr. Case and Ms. Shapiro offered a realistic view of Student and how he operates day-to-day, demonstrating an understanding of his strengths and challenges across a continuum; they had worked with him, had observed him and several of them had also evaluated Student. As such, I find these witnesses credible and rely on their perspective, findings and recommendations.
A review of the evidence reflects Student’s progress with self-regulation skills and the decrease in behaviors involving aggression and elopement over the past few years. IEPs, evaluation reports and progress reports in 2021, 2022 and 2023, describe Student as an individual with multiple behavioral and emotional challenges that interfered with his ability to access his education. The data in Student’s 2022-2023 school year IEP describes him as having frequent meltdowns in the classroom. He hit or otherwise demonstrated aggression toward himself, staff and property, vocalized loudly, cried a great deal, and frequently eloped (PE-3; PE-4; PE-5; PE-6; PE-7; PE-8; PE-9; Parent).
The IEP covering the periods from 12/20/22 to 12/2023 (the last IEP accepted by Parent), as well as the 12/20/23 to 12/2024, 12/20/24 to 12/20/25 and 11/12/25 to 11/11/26 IEPs offered Student instruction, services and accommodations specifically designed to meet all his areas of nee, and Student gradually began to respond to the interventions therein (SE-1A; SE-1B; SE-1C; SE-1D). Parent did not accept any IEPs following the 12/20/22 to 12/2023 IEP (SE-1D) and as a result, Boston was constrained to offer services consistent with Student’s stay put and stale IEP.
During the 2022-2023 school year, Student’s direct ABA services were interrupted for a significant period of time as a result of staff shortages[23] which both impacted Student’s behavior and emotional regulation, and Parent’s trust. ABA services eventually resumed and direct ABA services were again provided during the 2023-2024 school year under the auspices of South Shore Autism Center with whom Boston contracted (McLaughlin). That school year, Student also began receiving one-to-one paraprofessional support (Parent).
In mid-May of 2024, Ms. Duffy conducted an FBA. For purposes of this assessment, she defined aggression as instances during which Student “attempt[ed] or made contact with a person or object in a forceful manner”, and elopement as “leav[ing] a designated area without adult permission or knowledge” whether walking or running. Ms. Duffy opined that Student’s behaviors were “maintained by aversive demands or situations” he was trying to escape to access a preferred activity. Informed by the FBA results, on May 21, 2024, Ms. Duffy developed a BSP targeting aggression and elopement (SE-8). The BSP focused on development of self-advocacy skills, tolerance for delay or denial of a request, and independent use of coping strategies (PE-29; PE-30). She recommended that all individuals working with Student be trained to ensure implementation of the plan with fidelity and stressed the importance of home-school communication with Parent and the home ABA provider (PE-29; Parent, McLaughlin).
Student also received counseling (inclusive of CBT techniques) with Ms. Lovett to address self-regulation, progressively becoming more open and responsive to the interventions and he began to implement self-soothing concepts across settings (Lovett). Ms. Lovett testified that fifth grade had been a better year for Student than the prior year. Throughout this period, Student continued to make academic and OT progress and steady improvement with behavioral and emotional regulation.
During the 2024-2025 school year, some incidents of aggression and elopement, especially during the first and second terms, were documented. However, also documented was Student’s increased ability to implement, independently, without adult prompting, many of the self-regulation strategies he had learned as he became more engaged in counseling (Lovett). He also became more focused and gradually better able to remain on task in large and small group settings. Most of his problem behaviors occurred during non-preferred activities such as music and gym class (Moore, McLaughlin). Over time, Student accessed his one-to-one paraprofessional less frequently and Mr. Roman spent increasingly more time away from Student in the back of the room (Hannaford, Mulry, Larivee, Case). Socially, Student was well-liked by his peers and he enjoy making everyone laugh (Moore, Shapiro, Rizzo).
I next discuss evaluative information including Boston’s three-year re-evaluation conducted in the fall of 2024, Dr. Pineda’s neuropsychological evaluation conducted on September 11, 2024, Ms. Hendershott’s 2024 and 2025 FBAs, South Shore Autism Center data, which I consider in the context of Boston witnesses’ testimony regarding Student’s daily functioning.
Student’s three-year re-evaluation was conducted in the fall of 2024, while he was in sixth grade at Clap. Results reflected that Student’s academic abilities generally fell solidly in the average range across domains (PE-5)[24]. He evidenced no pragmatic language deficits per the speech and language evaluation (PE-6), and his psychological evaluation placed his cognitive abilities between the below average (in Non-Verbal Index) and average ranges (in Verbal, Composite Memory, Processing Speed Indexes) (SE-3). The OT evaluation showed Student to have appropriate gross motor, fine motor, visual-motor integration and visual perceptual skills (SE-2). Motor proficiency in the below average to average range per the BOT-2, and all subtests on the WOLD were in the average range (SE-2).
With respect to Student’s social emotional functioning the teacher’s rating form of the BASC-3 yielded clinically significant ratings for aggression, anxiety, depression, and adaptability, and the BRIEF indicated executive functioning deficits in the Emotional Regulation Index (SE-3). The Adaptive Behavior Skills Assessment/ Observations on November 4 and 6, 2024 by the BCBA document that Student demonstrated largely fluent (independent) skills. His skills in the areas of cooperation and reinforcer effectiveness, discrimination, communication, play and leisure, group instruction response, and social and classroom participation (including academic readiness, and ability to follow classroom routines, and participate in instructional activities) were also largely fluent, supporting his ability to function within a full inclusion classroom (SE-4). Self-regulation and elopement remained areas of concern requiring support.
Dr. Pineda’s neuropsychological evaluation and Ms. Hendershott’s 2024 FBA found strengths consistent with those identified by Boston’s evaluators, but their conclusions regarding placement recommendations differed from that of Boston’s Team.
Dr. Pineda noted that Student presented with “strong cognitive and academic abilities”, but was emotionally dysregulated. She was alarmed by his emotional reaction during testing when faced with a demand to complete a writing exercise without access to the accommodations he was provided in school, noting that he only saw such reaction in a small percentage of the students she tested. She opined that Student cared about how others perceived him and about his performance, causing him to become anxious. She also opined that Student was unable to ask for what he needed to access the curriculum and that he struggled in social situations because of deficits in understanding the perspective of others.
Ms. Hendershott’s November 2024 FBA led her to conclude that full inclusion programming (with counseling, ABA and para-professional support) was inappropriate to meet Student’s needs. Both she and Dr. Pineda recommended that Student be placed in a year-round therapeutic setting with a similarly profiled cohort that offered small group instruction, with in-the-moment interventions were offered by trained staff. The program should also provide integrated interdisciplinary support throughout the day (Pineda; Hendershott).
In contrast, Ms. Rizzo’s December 2024 ABA assessment found Student fully capable of accessing the classroom, prompting her to recommend that direct ABA skill development services be discontinued.
When the Team convened in December of 2024 for the annual review and to discuss the results of the independent and school evaluations, the Team added two new disability categories to the previous Autism category; to wit, learning disability in written expression, and health (Other Specified Anxiety Disorder) consistent with Dr. Pineda’s diagnoses. The Team also incorporated some of the private evaluators’ therapeutic recommendations and recommended that OT services be discontinued because Student had met his OT goals (SE-2). The Team discontinued OT services and despite discussing discontinuation of one-to-one support, in the end left the one-to-one support in place (SE-SE-1B). As previously done with the 2023-2024 IEP, Parent rejected the proposed 2024-2025 IEP (including the therapeutic supports recommended by her own experts), and Student continued receiving the services per the 2022-2023 stay put IEP.
The evidence is persuasive that during the fifth and sixth grades at Clap Student made effective progress in academics, and he made steady improvement in the socio-emotional and behavioral goals targeted in his IEP and BSP (McLaughlin, Rizzo, Mulry, Moore, Lovett). In fact, he mastered and surpassed many of the goals and objectives delineated in his 2022-2023 stay put IEP, this despite Parent’s rejection of the programs proposed by Boston for the 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 school years. Thus, the evidence supports a finding that the IEPs offered by Boston during the 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 school years, proposing an increase of therapeutic services, a decrease of direct ABA services and fading of one-to-one paraprofessional support in a full inclusion placement were reasonably calculated to offer Student a FAPE. Moreover, Student has demonstrated progress across all the areas of need identified in his IEPs.
I now turn to consideration of the program and placement proffered by Boston for the 2025-2026 school year. At the start of the 2025-2026 school year, Student attended an extended evaluation at the EI/TLC program at Ruth Batson pursuant to a Settlement Agreement. While Student did well in the substantially separate EI/TLC setting, this setting was never considered or recommended by Boston as a placement for Student given the progress and success he met overtime in previous full inclusion settings. The EI/TLC program proved to be overly restrictive and did not offer Student an appropriate cohort, as he performed at a higher and more independent level than his peers, and did not exhibit the types of behaviors displayed by others in this class. During recess/ free time, Student preferred socializing with typically developing peers in full inclusion programs, rather than socializing with the EI/TLC cohort (Case).
Mr. Case testified that by the mid-way extended evaluation meeting he would have recommended that Student transition to a full inclusion setting, as he was demonstrating academic competence, ability to self-advocate and self-regulate even when students around him were dysregulated and instigated him. Ms. Hendershott agreed that this setting was inappropriate for Student.[25]
The Team reconvened in November 2025 to discuss the results of the extended evaluation at the EI/TLC program. Mr. Case, Ms. Hannaford and the rest of Boston’s Team members recommended that Student return to full inclusion and so reflected that recommendation in the proposed IEP (SE-1A). The Team also discussed Ms. Hannaford’s recommendation that direct ABA services be discontinued and that ABA consultation be increased to better support Student. The Team proposed fading of Student’s one-to-one paraprofessional to promote independence (PE-42; SE-1A; Hannaford). IEP goals were updated based on the areas of concern raised by Ms. Hendershott, including the use of independent self-regulation techniques, ability to redirect attention, maintaining composure during peer interaction and demonstrating emotional regulation (Case). The resulting full inclusion IEP for the period from November 12, 2025 to November 11, 2026, offered BCBA and counseling consultation, daily self-regulation, executive functioning and reading and writing skills instruction, and weekly counseling sessions, with ESY programming and one-to-one support (PE-42; SE-1A).
Once again Parent rejected the IEP and Student continued receiving services in a full inclusion program at Ruth Batson, consistent with the 2022-2023 stay put IEP, the goals and objectives of which he had mastered. Neither of Parent’s experts observed the full inclusion program proposed by Boston.
Parent’s focus on the inappropriateness of the EI/TLC program for Student is misplaced as Boston never recommended this program as placement for Student. Student attended this program as a result of a Settlement Agreement and further, it is well established that an extended evaluation is not considered a placement. 603 CMR 28.05(2)(b)(5).
The evidence is convincing that given Student’s current presentation, neither a substantially separate program nor a year-round out-of-district placement is appropriate; both are overly restrictive settings that do not comport with the IDEA’s requirement that students be educated in the least restrictive setting appropriate to meet their needs.[26] 20 U.S.C.§ 1412 (a)(5)(A); M.G.L 71B §2.
Next, I turn to the fading of the one-to-one paraprofessional. Parent has consistently requested that a one-to-one paraprofessional be provided in order to ensure Student’s safety as a result of potential bolting. However, fading of the one-to-one paraprofessional has been endorsed by every professional that has worked with, observed and/or evaluated Student, including Parent’s own experts, Dr. Pineda and Ms. Hendershott. Despite opining that in full inclusion Student may need the support of a paraprofessional, Ms. Hendershott, viewed this service as hindering Student’s ability to become more independent. Ms. Rizzo explained what elopement looks like for Student, noting that when he leaves an area without adult permission he consistently responds to the “stop” command and complies with redirection from adults; he does not just run out of a space. As such, Ms. Rizzo opined that even if he eloped from the building to school grounds outside, Student would be safe. Moreover, paraprofessional support was faded during a period of time in 2025, and Student’s behaviors did not escalate.
The weight of the credible evidence supports a finding that Student’s one-to-one paraprofessional may be faded at this time. As this process occurs, it is important that Boston ensures that every adult responsible for Student be trained in his BSP and that they monitor Student’s ability to manage frustration and navigate conflict with peers, regardless of the initiator.
Lastly, the impact caused by Parent’s systematic rejection of all IEPs offered by Boston following the 2022-2023 IEP cannot be ignored, especially when some of those IEPs included recommendations made by her own experts. Parent’s actions impeded implementation of services better suited for Student, unintendedly impeding the very goal she seeks for him: independence. Nevertheless, throughout the relevant periods Boston continued to implement the services in Student’s stay put IEP while simultaneously doing what was allowable to address and adapt to his changing and emerging needs. Student’s engagement and response to the services offered has been remarkable, and he has remained motivated to participate in and socialize with friends in the general education setting. Given where his skill set and presentation was in 2021-2022 and where it is today, it is clear that he is ready for goals, objectives and programming different from what is reflected in his 2022-2023 IEP.
I find that Boston has offered Student programs and placements appropriate to meet his needs during all relevant periods addressed by this Decision, including the most recently proposed IEP covering the period of November 2025 to November 2026 consistent with Endrew F.. Moreover, the November 2025 to November 2026 IEP offering Student placement in a full inclusion program at Ruth Batson, with therapeutic supports and fading one-to-one support, offers FAPE in the LRE. Parent did not meet her burden of persuasion pursuant to Shaffer, supra. Boston shall
I note that as recommended by Boston’s and South Shore Autism Center BCBAs, counselors, Dr. Pineda and Ms. Hendershott, consultation among district and home-based service providers will be key to ensure consistency in implementation of strategies across settings, especially as Student’s one-to-one paraprofessional support is faded.
ORDER:
1. Boston shall implement the IEP covering the period from November 2025 to November 2026 forthwith.
By the Hearing Officer,
Rosa I. Figueroa
Rosa I. Figueroa
Dated: May 25, 2026
Footnotes
[1] A Ruling denying the Parties’ cross-motions to strike closing arguments was issued on April 23, 2026. Both closing arguments were accepted.
[2] The BCBA’s input appears under the fine motor and visual motor planning goal.
[3] Aggression was measured any time Student “attempt[ed] or made contact with a person or object in a forceful manner”, and elopement “leav[ing] a designated areas without adult permission or knowledge” whether walking or running (PE-29).
[4] In 2023 and again while conducting the 2024 FBA, Ms. Duffy, communicated with Student’s home ABA provider (McLaughlin).
[5] Ms. Hendershott alluded to the fact that Student had engaged in four episodes of elopement during the school year despite one-to-one support from a trained behavior technician.
[6] Parent had consented to these evaluations on or about October 9, 2025 (PE-32).
[7] Each skill was rated as one of the following four categories: 1) Not yet in current repertoire: Student is not able to do the skill even with prompting, motivation and assistance; 2) Emerging: Student is able to perform the skill with prompting and assistance for most of it; 3) Development: Student is able to perform the skill mostly independent with minimal prompting and reminders; 4) Fluent: Student readily utilizes and performs the skill without assistance and only occasional reminders (SE-4).
[8] In essence, OT consultation was removed from Grid A, BCBA consultation was increased to 240 minutes per month, and counseling consultation was added.
[9] This goal included three objectives: “1) Given practice and instruction, [Student] will incorporate pre- learned coping strategies during team activities without engaging in challenging behavior with an average of at least 80% independence; 2) Given practice and instruction, [Student] will tolerate losing a game with a staff member or peer without engaging in challenging behavior with an average of at least 80% independence; 3) Given practice and instruction, [Student] will remain in PE class without engaging in challenging behavior with an average of at least 80% independence” (PE-37; SE-1B).
[10] The objectives in the counseling goal were: “1) Through IEP counseling, [Student] will be able to describe 3 social triggers and to identify 3 strategies to implement for each to prevent undesirable behaviors in 4 out of 5 observations; 2) Through IEP counseling, [Student] will develop the ability to respond appropriately to adult redirections and feedback by complying with directives and not engaging in undesirable behaviors in 4 out of 5 opportunities; 3) Through IEP counseling, [Student] will be able to advocate for himself appropriately with adults to solve problems in 3 out of 4 opportunities” (PE-37; SE-1B).
[11] During a portion of time during the extended evaluation, Student’s one-to-one paraprofessional support was faded (Case).
[12] The singular exception was one incident of frustration during a game; however, he requested a break, accessed support through a check-in, and returned to his class shortly thereafter, calm and ready to continue class work.
[13] Parent did not mention at this Team meeting that Student continued to receive outside services (Case).
[14] Ruth Batson offers school-wide interventions and therapeutic supports to students in full inclusion settings (SE-29; SE-30; Hannaford).
[15] 20 USC s. 1400 et seq.
[16] M.G.L. ch. 71B.
[17] 20 USC 1400(d)(1)(A) (purpose of the federal law is to ensure that children with disabilities have FAPE that “emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs . . . .”); 20 USC 1401(29) (“special education” defined to mean “specially designed instruction . . . to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability . . .”); Honig v. DOE, *484 U.S. 305, 311* (1988) (FAPE must be tailored “to each child's unique needs”).
[18] See D.B. v. Esposito, 675 F.3d 26, 34 (1st Cir. 2012) where the court explicitly adopted the meaningful benefit standard.
[19] Sebastian M. v. King Philip Reg’l Sch. Dist., 685 F.3d 79, 84 (1st Cir. 2012), (“the IEP must be custom-tailored to suit a particular child”); Mr. I. ex rel L.I. v. Maine Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 55, 480 F.3d 1, 4-5, 20 (1st Cir. 2007) (stating that FAPE must include “specially designed instruction …[t]o address the unique needs of the child that result from the child’s disability”) (quoting 34 C.F.R. 300.39(b)(3)). See also Lenn v. Portland Sch. Committee, 998 F.2d 1083 (1st Cir. 1993) (program must be “reasonably calculated to provide ‘effective results’ and ‘demonstrable improvement’ in the various ‘educational and personal skills identified as special needs’”); Roland M. v. Concord Sch. Committee, 910 F.2d 983 (1st Cir. 1990) (“Congress indubitably desired ‘effective results’ and ‘demonstrable improvement’ for the Act's beneficiaries”); Burlington v. Dep’t of Educ., 736 F.2d 773, 788 (1st Cir. 1984) (“objective of the federal floor, then, is the achievement of effective results--demonstrable improvement in the educational and personal skills identified as special needs--as a consequence of implementing the proposed IEP”); 603 CMR 28.05(4)(b) (Student’s IEP must be “designed to enable the student to progress effectively in the content areas of the general curriculum”); 603 CMR 28.02(18) (“Progress effectively in the general education program shall mean to make documented growth in the acquisition of knowledge and skills, including social/emotional development, within the general education program, with or without accommodations, according to chronological age and developmental expectations, the individual educational potential of the child, and the learning standards set forth in the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks and the curriculum of the district.”).
[20] 20 USC 1412 (a)(5)(A).
[21] Johnson v. Boston Pub. Schs., 906 F.3d 182, 194-95 (1st Cir. 2018) (holding that Massachusetts’ “meaningful educational benefit” standard adopted in D.B., 675 F.3d at 34, comports with the Endrew F. standard); see MGL c. 69, s. 1 (“paramount goal of the commonwealth to provide a public education system of sufficient quality to extend to all children the opportunity to reach their full potential… ”); MGL c. 71B, s. 1 (defining “special education” as “…educational programs and assignments…. designed to develop the educational potential of children with disabilities….”); 603 CMR 28.01(3) (identifying the purpose of the state special education regulations as “to ensure that eligible Massachusetts students receive special education services designed to develop the student’s individual educational potential…”). See also Mass. Dep’t of Educ.’s Administrative Advisory SPED 2002-1: [Guidance on the change in special education standard of service] from “maximum possible development” to “free appropriate public education” (“FAPE”), effective January 1, 2002, 7 MSER Quarterly Reports 1 (2001) (appearing at www.doe.mass.edu/sped) (Massachusetts Education Reform Act “underscores the Commonwealth’s commitment to assist all students to reach their full educational potential”).
[22] Hendrick Hudson Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 199, 202 (court declined to set out a bright-line rule for what satisfies a FAPE, noting that children have different abilities and are therefore capable of different achievements; court adopted an approach that takes into account the potential of the disabled student). See also Lessard v. Wilton Lyndeborough Cooperative Schl. Dist., 518 F3d. 18, 29 (1st Cir. 2008), and D.B., 675 F.3d at 36 (“In most cases, an assessment of a child’s potential will be a useful tool for evaluating the adequacy of his or her IEP.”).
[23] This issue has been resolved between the Parties and is not before me.
[24] Student demonstrated average reading skills, average to below average math skills, but below average scores in spelling and writing fluency (SE-3)
[25] She also raised an additional concern about Student’s ability to manage bullying and teasing in the moment in relation to the music class incident discussed, supra.
[26] See C.D. v. Natick Public Schools, 924 F.3d 621 (1st Cir. 2019); see also C.G. v. Five Town Comty. Sch. Dist., 513 F3d. 279, 285 (1st Cir. 2008).