COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Student v. Wachusett Regional School District BSEA # 2608856
DECISION
This decision is issued pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 USC 1400 et seq.), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 USC 794), the state special education law (MGL c. 71B), the state Administrative Procedure Act (MGL c. 30A), and the regulations promulgated under these statutes.
A hearing was held at the Worcester Courthouse, located at 225 Main Street, Worcester, Massachusetts, on May 27, May 29, and June 4, 2026, before Hearing Officer Alina Kantor Nir. Parents and Wachusett Regional School District (Wachusett, WRSD, or the District) were represented by counsel. Those present for all or part of the proceedings were:
Father
Mother
Grandmother
Grandfather
Amanda Raymond Speech/Language Pathologist, WRSD
Cathy Mason Educational Consultant
Christie Omasta Reading Teacher, WRSD
Dr. Christine Sadowski Neuropsychologist
Emma Nerssessian Special Education Teacher, WRSD
Guida Ross Special Education Teacher, WRSD
Jaime Hughes Science Teacher, WRSD
Jessica Martelli Occupational Therapist, WRSD
Joan DeAngelis Director of Special Education and Student Services, WRSD
Kathryn Andrus Speech/Language Pathologist, WRSD
Marci Driscoll Occupational Therapist, WRSD
Kathryn М. Sullivan Attorney for Parents
Craig F. Kowalski Attorney for Wachusett
Jillian Allen-Scannell District Attorney’s Office Intern, Observer
Olivia Syat BSEA Intern, Observer
Rebecca Baron Court Reporter
The official record of the hearing consists of documents submitted by Parents and marked as P-1 through P-17; documents submitted by Wachusett and marked as Exhibits S-1 through S-16; approximately three days of oral testimony and argument; and a three-volume transcript produced by a court reporter. Closing arguments were made orally on June 4, 2026, and the record closed on that day.
ISSUES IN DISPUTE:
The following issues are in dispute:
1. Whether the Individualized Education Program (IEP) for the period January 21, 2025, to January 20, 2026 (January 2025 IEP) and the IEP for the period December 2, 2025, to December 1, 2026 (December 2025 IEP) were/are reasonably calculated to offer Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE)?
a. If the answer is no, then whether Student is eligible for compensatory services, including but not limited to compensatory specialized reading/language-based instruction and related services necessary to remedy a denial of FAPE?
2. Whether Student requires a prospective placement at District expense in a full-day small group language-based special education program with explicit, systematic instruction across academic domains?
FACTUAL FINDINGS[1]:
1. Student is an extremely social, athletic, compassionate, resilient, and hardworking 12-year-old resident of Holden, Massachusetts, who is universally described as determined and a “great kid.” He hopes to attend college and join the military. Student is currently in sixth grade at Central Tree Middle School in Rutland, Massachusetts, which is part of the WRSD. The WRSD is therefore responsible for providing him a FAPE, and he is eligible for special education under the disability categories of Neurological and Specific Learning Disability. (Mother, Father, Sadowski, Ross, Hughes, Martelli, Nerssessian, Omasta, Andrus, P-2, P-3, P-4, P-6, P-9)
2. Student has a significant medical history. Born at 30 weeks via emergency C-section following a complicated pregnancy, he spent approximately eight weeks in the NICU and was later hospitalized with RSV. As a toddler, he survived a near-drowning and required ICU care. In 2016, he was diagnosed with Panayiotopoulos Syndrome, a childhood seizure disorder. (Mother, Sadowski, P-2, P-3)
3. Student entered the District’s Development Program in kindergarten. (Mother)
4. Joan De Angelis is the District’s Director of Special Education and Student Services. She has an extensive 31-year career in education. According to Ms. DeAngelis, the Developmental Program (currently called the RISE Program) predominantly serves students with neurological and intellectual disabilities who present with adaptive and social skills needs and require a slow pace and an academic and life skills curriculum. (DeAngelis)
5. After Student entered the Developmental Program, Parents repeatedly raised concerns about his reading, but District staff were not concerned. In second grade, after the Fundations methodology proved ineffective, the District agreed to an eight-week Wilson trial at the recommendation of Student’s pediatrician; when Student made no progress, the District determined that Wilson was inappropriate. (Mother, Father)
6. Testing in first and second grade showed below-average cognitive abilities (FSIQ 75) with relative strength in verbal comprehension (VCI 88) and weaknesses in fluid reasoning (FRI 65) and processing speed (PSI 77). Adaptive functioning was also below average, except for a relative strength in socialization (SS 89). Academically, achievement was generally below average, with very poor literacy skills (Fundamental Literacy Index SS 62), while language abilities ranged from low average to below average (CELF Core Language SS 87; Receptive 83; Expressive 89; Content 80; Structure 87). (P-2, P-8)
Third Grade (2022-2023)
1. In third grade, Student transitioned to the Developmental Program at Glenwood Elementary School in Rutland, Massachusetts. His teacher, Guida Ross, is a DESE-licensed severe special needs teacher with a master’s degree in severe special education, 16 years of District experience, and prior experience at the New England Center for Children. The Program served 12 students with diverse needs, including significant adaptive and life-skills deficits, across two classrooms supported by a BCBA and seven paraprofessionals. (Ross, P-2, P-3)
2. Ms. Ross provided individualized reading instruction using the Science Research Associates (SRA) program, a structured approach emphasizing phonics, repetition, and comprehension, with 90% accuracy required for advancement. She also used Signs for Sounds for spelling instruction. Although she believed SRA was effective for Student, she was unsure whether advancement required mastery of both decoding and encoding, and she acknowledged that Student could progress in reading without mastering spelling. (Ross)
3. The Team convened on January 27, 2023, and developed an IEP for the period from January 27, 2023, through January 26, 2024 (the January 2023 IEP), which Parents accepted in full on February 22, 2023. The January 2023 IEP included goals and objectives in the areas of Communication, Visual-Motor/Fine-Motor Skills, Academics, and Reading. The following services were offered: А Grid: consultation from an Occupational Therapist (1x10 minutes), Speech and Language Pathologist (1x10 minutes), Special Education Teacher (1x10 minutes), and а Teacher for the Visually Impaired (1x30 minutes/month); В Grid: paraprofessional non-academic support (1:3) (5x60 minutes, recess), paraprofessional academic support (1:2) (5x60 minutes), Vision (1x45 minutes); С Grid: Occupational Therapy (2x30 minutes per week from an ОТ/СОТА); Speech and Language Services (2х30 minutes per week from an SLP/SLPA); Specialized Instruction in Reading (5x45 minutes per week from а Special Education Teacher/Paraprofessional); Developmental Program Services with ; and Developmental Program Services with Special Education Teacher (5x156 minutes) with a 1:1 Paraprofessional for that entire block of time. The Team also proposed Extended School Year (ESY) services. (Ross, P-2, S-2)
Fourth Grade (2023-2024)
4. During the 2023-2024 school year, Student underwent his three-year reevaluation, consisting of Educational Assessment A/B; Educational Achievement Assessment; Psychoeducational Assessment; Occupational Therapy (OT) evaluation; Speech and Language (SPL) evaluation; and a Functional Vision Assessment/Learning Media Assessment. (P-2, P-3, S-2)
5. Inna Liubovich, Psy.D., completed the psychoeducational assessment.[2] Student’s FSIQ score was in the Extremely Low range (FSIQ 62, VCI 68, VSI 67, FRI 62, WMI 74). His general adaptive functioning was in the Adequate range. Recommendations included exposing Student to new experiences, frequent communication, executive functioning, memory and visual support, repetition and frequent checks for understanding, use of familiar vocabulary, and pre-teaching concepts. (P-3, S-3)
6. Ms. Ross completed the Educational Assessment A/B for Student. Student was making progress in his ELA and Math skills at his developmental level. He participated in science and social studies in the inclusion classroom, where he received some accommodations and/or modifications, but understood the concepts. His third-grade MCAS (administered with accommodations) results were “Partially Meeting Expectations” for English Language Arts (ELA) and “Not Meeting Expectations” for Math. In reading, Student had completed 69 lessons in the SRA Reading Program and 90 lessons in the Perceptual Cognitive Institute (PCI) Level 1 program (addressing sight-word recognition). In spelling, Student had completed 16 lessons in the Signs for Sounds Level 1 program. He had strong punctuation skills when copying teacher-written sentences and required prompting to complete a journal entry. Mathematically, he was progressing in accuracy and independence with addition, subtraction, time telling, and counting money. Student was easily distracted and required frequent repetition to master and retain skills. (Ross, P-2, P-3, S-2)
7. Ms. Ross also completed the Educational Achievement Assessment. She concluded that Student appeared to have a harder time completing tasks that required him to read and/or write and/or involved lengthy directions. On the WIAT-IV, Student scored in the extremely low range for Numerical Operations (SS 66), Word Reading (SS 69), and Spelling (SS 68), and in the very low range for Reading Comprehension (SS 72), Math Problem Solving (SS 79), Sentence Composition (SS 79), and Alphabet Writing (SS 75). His Reading and Mathematics composite scores fell in the extremely low range (SS 69 and 67, respectively). Student’s essay could not be scored, so composite scores for Written Expression and Total Achievement were not calculated. Student was unable to write the alphabet independently and could not spell the word “mother.”
Ms. Ross opined that Student’s academic achievement was generally consistent with his cognitive profile, though she noted that Student relied on numerous classroom accommodations, including visual supports, manipulatives, and breaking tasks into smaller components, which were unavailable during standardized testing. She recommended continued instruction in all academic areas at Student’s developmental level; paraprofessional support throughout the school day; explicit instruction in phonics, decoding, and sight words; repeated practice and review; shortened directions; frequent checks for understanding; and the use of visual supports. (Ross, P-3, S-4)
8. Marci Smith Driscoll completed the occupational therapy (OT) evaluation. She concluded that Student demonstrated weaknesses in visual motor and visual perceptual skills, as well as consistent use of legible writing, and recommended that Student be provided with visual supports (visual models, limited distractions, copies of notes), extra time to complete written work, adaptive writing supports, opportunities to practice typing, and writing tasks broken into smaller parts. (P-3, S-6)
9. Amanda Raymond’s speech-language evaluation found that Student demonstrated borderline to at-risk language functioning on the CELF-5 (Core Language Index 79), with relative strengths in receptive and expressive language. He continued to need support with complex directions, vocabulary development, and higher-order comprehension. Ms. Raymond concluded that Student’s speech-language impairment affected his academic functioning and information processing despite strong progress in pragmatic language skills, and she recommended multisensory instruction and exposure to a broad range of vocabulary. (P-3, S-5)
10. A Functional Vision Assessment/Learning Media Assessment, administered in November 2023 and January 2024, found Student could travel independently around the classroom, had good organizational skills, and did not exhibit visual behaviors consistent with Chronic Venous Insufficiency (CVI). Consultative services from а Teacher of Students with Visual Impairments were recommended. (S-7)
11. At the January 23, 2024, Team meeting held to review the results of Student’s re-evaluation, Student was found to remain eligible for special education. An IEP for the period January 23, 2024, to January 22, 2025 (the January 2024 IEP) was proposed, calling for Student’s continued placement in a substantially separate setting and addressing goals in the areas of Communication, Visual Motor Skills, Academics, and Reading. Compared with the January 2023 IEP, most objectives remained the same, but consultative TVI services were increased to 1 hour monthly, while direct TVI services were decreased to 30 minutes weekly. Additionally, the student-to-paraprofessional/special education teacher support ratio in the C-Grid increased to 1:2 (from 1:1). Parents fully accepted this IEP and placement on March 7, 2024. (P-4, S-8)
12. Ms. Ross did not recommend a methodology such as Wilson, Orton-Gillingham (OG), Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing Program (LiPS), or Retrieval, Automaticity, Vocabulary, Engagement, Orthography Program (RAVE-O)[3] because she believed Student was making progress through his 1:1 SRA instruction. She testified that Student advanced from the kindergarten level to nearly completing the first-grade level of the SRA program by the end of fifth grade, progressed on his IEP objectives, and increasingly applied reading strategies despite limited gains on standardized measures. Ms. Ross noted that Student’s performance was affected by impulsivity, attention, and pace, but she observed gradual progress with accommodations and modifications. Socially, Student was highly engaged and well-liked.
13. Student’s February 2024 Progress Report (addressing the January 2023 IEP goals) reflected that Student was partially proficient with his Communication and Academic Goals, had mastered his Reading Goal, and, with prompting, had mastered his Visual Motor/Fine-Motor Skills Goal. (Ross, P-2, Ross)
14. On March 7, 2024, Parents accepted the IEP and substantially separate classroom placement in the Developmental Program. (P-4, S-8)
Fifth Grade (2024-2025)
15. At Student’s annual review on January 21, 2025, the Team proposed the January 2025 IEP with Goals in the same area as the January 2024 IEP. The IEP largely continued carryover of objectives for the Communication and Visual Motor Skills goals, while the Academics Goal repeated several prior spelling, math, and writing objectives, adding only a new multiplication objective. The reading goal focused on decoding words with specific sounds. Ms. Ross did not recommend a stand-alone phonological awareness goal despite Student’s phonological awareness score being in the first percentile. Although multiple-digit equations were proposed as an objective, she could not recall whether Student had mastered single-digit addition and subtraction. (Ross) Student’s December 2024 Progress Report indicated that Student was only partially proficient in all goals delineated in the January 2024 IEP. (P-5)
16. The following services were proposed: А Grid: consultation from an Occupational Therapist (1x10 minutes), Speech and Language Pathologist (1x10 minutes), Special Education Teacher (1x10 minutes), and а Teacher of the Visually Impaired (5 hours per year); В Grid: paraprofessional support (1:3) (5x90 minutes) and occupational therapy (1x30 minutes) until the conclusion of the 2024-2025 school year and Paraprofessional support (1:3) (5x55 minutes, general education classroom) and Paraprofessional support (1:3) (5x55 minutes, specials) beginning with the 2025-2026 school year; С Grid: Occupational Therapy (1x30 minutes per week from an ОТ/СОТА); Speech and Language Services (2х30 minutes per week from an SLP/SLPA); Specialized Instruction in Reading (5x45 minutes per week from а Special Education Teacher/Paraprofessional); Developmental Program Services with Special Education teacher/Paraprofessional (1:2 Para) (5x126 minutes) until the conclusion of the 2024-2025 school year, and Developmental Program Services with Special Education Teacher/Paraprofessional (5x192 minutes) beginning with the 2025-2026 school year. The Team also proposed ESY services, including Developmental Program with ESY faculty and staff (4x3 hours (1:2 para) and SLP (1x30 minutes). The IEP proposed placement in the Life Skills program at Central Tree Middle School.
According to the January 2025 IEP, Parents felt Student was benefiting from inclusion, and they emphasized that they wanted Student to remain on a diploma track with continued inclusion opportunities to support his academic progress in middle school, as opposed to a life skills track. They inquired about the middle school STEP[4] and AIM programs[5]. (Ross, P-6, S-10) Ms. Ross testified that the Team recommended reducing inclusion opportunities (from 5x90 to 5x55) “to accommodate the Central Tree Middle School model.” (Ross, P-6) Ms. DeAngelis testified that Student’s inclusion time was reduced in this IEP to accommodate reading. (DeAngelis)
17. Ms. Ross testified that students from the Developmental Program typically progress to the Life Skills program at Central Tree Middle School, which is not a diploma track. This program was proposed by the Team for Student “because the other options would not have fit him.” (Ross) Shaunna Connor, the Team Chair at the January 2025 Team meeting, stated that once Student transitioned to Central Tree, he could attend History for inclusion as a pass/fail class rather than a graded class. However, Ms. Ross was not concerned that Student could keep up with the curriculum even if graded. (Ross, P-6, S-10)
18. Dr. Christine Sadowski conducted a Neuropsychological Evaluation of Student over one and a half days in February 2025, including a record review and standardized testing.[6] (Father, Sadowski) Dr. Sadowski currently works at Boston Child and Adolescent Assessments in Watertown, Massachusetts. She has extensive experience in evaluating students. (Sadowski, P-8)
Consistent with past evaluations, Student was found to have stronger verbal cognitive abilities than visual-spatial reasoning and nonverbal problem-solving. Student demonstrated low average verbal reasoning and processing speed, below average working memory, and exceptionally low visual spatial reasoning and fluid/nonverbal problem-solving. There was some scatter in the findings over time, as his performance was affected by seizure control and setting. Student demonstrated stronger verbal abilities, similar working memory, and slightly weaker visual spatial reasoning, nonverbal reasoning, and processing speed, than his prior testing[7].
While Student's cognitive abilities broadly fell in the extremely low range, his FSIQ was not a reliable estimate of his capabilities, due to the significant discrepancy between his verbal reasoning and visual-spatial/nonverbal reasoning in the broader context of neurological impairment. Moreover, Student's adaptive functioning in daily life had consistently been stronger than his general cognition, falling within the low-average range, with strengths in socialization and interpersonal skills.
Regarding executive functions, Student had weaknesses in working memory, processing speed, set shifting, inhibition, and planning/organization. He tended to be concrete in his approach to verbal problem-solving and showed reduced planning, organization, and grasp of the big picture when faced with complexity. Student had below-average verbal learning and memory, which represented stronger skills than his 2020 testing but weaker results than the 2022 findings. He showed a more plateaued pattern in his learning, while his delayed memory was similar to the 2022 testing, reflecting continued difficulty with recall. In language, Student demonstrated average receptive single-word vocabulary and social perspective-taking, low-average expressive single-word vocabulary and sentence recall, and below-average ability to follow increasingly complex directions. Visual learning and nonverbal memory were in the low average and average ranges, respectively.
Student was overwhelmed when presented with complex visual information and demonstrated below-average visual-motor integration, exceptionally low fine motor speed/dexterity, and variable motor-reduced perceptual skills (ranging from below-average for visual organization to exceptionally low for spatial perception). These findings were weaker than in the previous evaluation, although, as different tasks were used, caution was warranted in comparison.
Academically, Student's achievement was broadly in the exceptionally low range. Mathematics skills were at the early first-grade level. Student made gains in pseudoword decoding and decoding fluency, which fell within the low-average and below-average ranges, respectively. However, his grasp of key subskills involved in reading and spelling remained insecure, despite the intervention he had received. Phonological processing was below average, and Student’s reading comprehension was at the second-grade level. Student still could not spell “mother” or “hockey,” his favorite sport, despite seeing those words frequently, and had impaired graphomotor skills that impacted his writing. Student was not making gains with interventions, and his achievement was stagnating and/or falling further behind.
Dr. Sadowski testified that her cognitive findings were “mostly consistent” with Student’s prior testing, except for some variability with 2023 findings, which could have been the result of seizures. Student was not generalizing or mastering foundational skills, was not closing academic gaps, and was not making meaningful progress over time, with some areas showing increasing delay relative to peers. Given Student’s Verbal Comprehension IQ of 86, he would be expected to demonstrate stronger reading fluency, but his academic achievement had declined over time despite cognitive scores remaining stable. These findings indicated that the interventions Student had been provided were insufficient, as effective programming would have at least maintained, if not improved, performance.
Dr. Sadowski diagnosed Student with Specific Learning Disabilities in reading (dyslexia), written language (dysgraphia), and mathematics, as well as Other Specified Cognitive Disorder related to weaknesses in executive functioning, attention, and visual-spatial/nonverbal reasoning. Regardless of the diagnostic model used, the findings were consistent with specific learning disabilities in reading (dyslexia), mathematics, and written language, albeit within the broader context of a complicated medical and neurological history.
Dr. Sadowski testified that there was a discrepancy between the child she read about and the child she met. She did not diagnose Student with ADHD[8] or an intellectual disability. For an intellectual disability, both cognition and adaptive functioning have to be considered, and the DSM-5 places greater emphasis on adaptive functioning. Thus, a program for intellectually disabled students was not appropriate for Student, as those peers would be inappropriate. She disagreed that Student has a low cognitive profile, testifying Student’s complicated medical history, а unique neuropsychological profile, and specific learning disabilities warrant an educational placement that meets his learning needs and maintains his self-esteem and social connectedness.
Dr. Sadowski recommended that Student continue to receive special education services under Neurological and Sensory (Vision) disability categories, with consideration of a Specific Learning Disability as a secondary classification. Student should be placed in a language-based learning disability (LLD) program with small class sizes, low student-teacher ratios, and a whole-child approach, with interventions for executive functioning, language-based learning, and memory integrated across the curriculum and school environment. She emphasized that while no single program would be a perfect fit, Student required structured, language-based instruction that incorporated direct, explicit, data-driven, multisensory, and highly supported teaching, with frequent feedback and scaffolding. If such a specialized program were not available, she opined that an LLD classroom with inclusion, supported by a paraprofessional (for science, social studies, and specials), would be more appropriate than a program designed for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities, given Student’s relative strengths in adaptive functioning and socialization.
Dr. Sadowski recommended LiPS for its kinesthetic strengths and reduced working-memory demands compared to Orton-Gillingham, as Wilson had already proven ineffective. She recommended that direct instruction in orthographic patterns be provided with support from a certified specialist, as well as supplemental small-group or one-on-one math instruction. Touch Math was not an appropriate program given Student’s visual-spatial and working memory weaknesses. (Sadowski, P-8)
19. Parents found Dr. Sadowski’s report “hard to read” (Mother, Father), and while Mother immediately provided it to the District on or about April 2025, a Team meeting was not scheduled until the week prior to the last day of school. (Mother)
20. On April 16, 2025, Parents accepted the January 2025 IЕР in part and rejected the substantially separate classroom placement. (P-6, S-10) Parents’ April 16, 2025 rejection letter expressed concern that Student was not making meaningful progress relative to his abilities or closing the achievement gap. While acknowledging past social gains, Parents rejected a life-skills-focused placement, asserting that Student should remain on a diploma track and receive more intensive, evidence-based instruction. Parents also requested greater specificity and measurability throughout the IEP, rejected references to balanced literacy and SRA, sought explicit, evidence-based reading and math methodologies, objected to vague or combined goals, and challenged service-delivery language that suggested paraprofessionals would provide specialized instruction. (Ross, P-6)
21. In May 2025, the District proposed, and Parents accepted, an Extended Evaluation from May 8 through June 6, 2025. As part of the evaluation, Student attended one hour of ELA instruction in the general education classroom four days per week, with data collected on his participation, independence, and task completion. The District noted that since January 7, 2025, Student had successfully participated in 30-minute general education vocabulary lessons with support, working well with peers and self-advocating. According to Ms. Ross, the purpose of the Extended Evaluation was to determine whether Student could spend more time in inclusion settings. (Mother, Ross, S-11) However, the Team never met to review the results of the Extended Evaluation, and Parents never received the data that was allegedly collected. Ms. Ross testified that she had created data sheets for the inclusion teacher, but she did not know what happened to the collected data and did not follow up. Despite the Extended Evaluation Form indicating that the Team would reconvene on June 5, 2025, to review the evaluation results, no such meeting took place. (Mother, Ross)
22. The Team meeting scheduled to review Dr. Sadowski’s report was canceled the day before it was to occur because the District psychologist was unavailable. As a result, the Team could not reconvene until the following school year. Mother was disappointed because she wanted Student’s current Team, who knew him well, to review the report. (Mother) However, Ms. DeAngelis spoke with Parents in the summer and informed them about Intensive Intervention Supports (IIS), a “new model” being formed in response to a cohort of peers for whom it was appropriate. At that time, no teacher had yet been hired for the program. (DeAngelis)
23. Ms. Ross, who drafted Student’s Academic Goal, could not explain why the objectives in Student’s 2023, 2024, and 2025 IEPs were identical or why the goals did not separately address skills such as written language, oral language, comprehension, vocabulary, and syntax. She testified that some of these skills were addressed through the SRA program, although they were not specifically reported in progress reports. By fifth grade, Student was working at approximately a first-grade level in SRA. Ms. Ross described the Academic Goal as functional but acknowledged that Student had worked on some objectives, including counting coins, across multiple IEP periods without achieving independence despite varied instructional strategies. (Ross)
24. Mother believed Student was making some progress, but not meaningful progress. She noted that his goals remained largely unchanged from year to year and testified that she raised concerns about his progress at every Team meeting. (Mother, Father)
25. Ms. Ross testified that Student received first-grade-level ELA and math instruction throughout third through fifth grade, while accessing fifth-grade social studies and science content. At the end of fifth grade, he was partially proficient in his goals, although the IEP period had not yet concluded. Ms. Ross did not recommend any changes to Student’s specialized instruction or methodology for sixth grade. (Ross)
Sixth Grade (2025-2026)
26. For sixth grade, Student transitioned to the Central Tree Middle School (Central Tree) in Rutland, Massachusetts. (Mother)
27. The Team convened on August 27, 2025. Dr. Sadowski was present, and the Team reviewed her report. Mother testified that although Ms. Ross attended the Team meeting, all the other participants were from Central Tree. Mother was upset to learn that none of the students in the Developmental Program were on a diploma track and advised the Team that Student would not be attending the Developmental Program. (Mother)
Ms. Ross recalled that during the August 2025 meeting, the Vice Principal of Central Tree indicated that “there is not much inclusion at Central Tree,” and if Student were included in Science or Social Studies, he would need to attend every day and be graded, so it was recommended that he take the classes Pass/Fail. Ms. Ross was not concerned that Student would be unable to access the curriculum or be graded in those classes because she believed that, with the right accommodations and modifications, he would be fine. (Ross, Mother, P-9)[9]
28. The Team proposed an Amendment to the January 2025 IEP, dated September 3, 2025, that changed Student’s disability category from Neurological and Communication to Neurological and Specific Learning Disability, added Speech-to-Text as an accommodation, made “minimal[ ]” changes to the Goals, updated the Service Delivery Grid, and changed his proposed program location to the Intensive Instructional Support classroom. The Reading Goal was re-labeled Specialized Instruction Reading Goal and targeted identifying sounds; blending, decoding, segmenting, and spelling words with three or more sounds; reading and spelling high-frequency words and homophones; increasing silent reading skills; and reading controlled text passages (at Student’s current multisensory reading step). His Speech and Language Goal was also updated. The Service Delivery Grid was revised to add A-Grid consultation with the Reading Teacher; B-Grid Science with a regular and special education teacher; and replace the C-Grid services associated with the Developmental Program with C-Grid ELA, Math, and Social Studies. The Team proposed that Student remain on а graduation track. Further, despite Dr. Sadowski’s contrary recommendation, the Amendment reflected that the Reading Teacher used the Wilson program. (Ross, P-9)
29. Although the Team asked Dr. Sadowski about her recommendation for a language-based classroom, it did not receive much specificity about “what that meant to her.” According to Ms. DeAngelis, language-based strategies can be used in other settings. (DeAngelis)
30. Central Tree staff have not participated in any professional development on delivering reading/writing instruction using Landmark or any other model. Staff, including special education teachers, were trained in Central Tree’s curriculum for reading and writing (Amplify), math (Reveal and ALEKS), and science (OpenSciEd). Social Studies is taught through units of study and an ancient civilizations textbook, which can be modified as needed. (DeAngelis)
31. According to Ms. DeAngelis IIS is “more of a methodology” than a program. IIS allows students to access grade-level skills at their level and focuses on key content or modified content. The Team recommended IIS based on Student’s progress at Glenwood and his increased availability for learning due to his medical needs having stabilized. Ms. Ross did not believe that Student required the adaptive and social skill components of the Developmental Program for sixth grade, nor that he had made sufficient academic progress to progress in a less restrictive academic setting. His verbal profile was a strength. The Team declined to place Student in the District’s language-based program (AIM) at the August meeting because Student’s cognitive profile was not commensurate with that of peers in the program. It was determined that IIS was more appropriate for Student’s cognitive profile because in IIS, instruction was individualized according to individual needs and offered inclusion opportunities and beyond-academic opportunities, thereby being less restrictive than the Developmental Program (STEP) proposed in the January 2025 IEP. (DeAngelis, Ross)
32. On September 16, 2025, Parents accepted the services and goals in the Amended January 2025 IEP. They rejected the IEP’s failure to further break down goals or include paraprofessionals as service providers. Parents rejected the IIS placement, generally, but accepted it for the purpose of school attendance because they “had no other option,” as Student’s stay-put placement was the Developmental Program. (Mother, P-9)
33. Father testified that because the District proposed Wilson instruction for Student, Student's private tutor also worked on Wilson. (Father)
34. Christie Omasta is Student’s current Reading Teacher. She has both general and special education experience, is Wilson-certified, and has worked as a reading teacher in the District since 2013. She is in the process of obtaining a master’s degree as a reading specialist. In her work, Ms. Omasta also uses OG and Read Naturally methodologies and strategies. Ms. Omasta consults with Ms. Nerssessian but does not push into the IIS classroom. Prior to working with Student, Ms. Omasta reviewed Student’s evaluations in order to understand his cognitive profile and how he learns. Ms. Omasta opined that both the Wilson and Read Naturally programs satisfy Dr. Sadowski’s recommendation for a multisensory reading program. (Omasta)
35. In September 2025, Ms. Omasta wrote the Student’s Specialized Reading Goal, which she aligned with the Wilson program. She began Student’s instruction at Level 1 because he was not demonstrating those skills despite his tutor noting that Student was at Wilson Level 2.3. (Omasta)
36. Emma Nerssessian is Student’s special education teacher in his IIS substantially separate classroom. She has worked in the District for 10 years. According to Ms. Nerssessian, the IIS program supports students who cannot keep up in the general education, inclusion, or co-taught classrooms but who were not on a life skills track. In her classes, Ms. Nerssessian uses the grade six curriculum (i.e., Amplify and Reveal). Ms. Nerssessian is Wilson Level 1 certified and integrates Wilson into her classes, especially ELA. (She is not familiar with LiPS or RAV-O.) She could not recall whether Wilson had a grammar component or whether she was trained in the mechanics of sentence writing, but agreed that Wilson did not include any training on how to formulate a sentence or to write at the paragraph level. If a student has phonological awareness issues and is using Wilson, Ms. Nerssessian explained that she provides remedial activities to identify common errors to target. However, she did not know the scope and sequence for teaching the foundational skills needed to produce letter sounds. (Nerssessian)
37. There are 7 students in Student’s substantially separate ELA class, 6 students in Social Studies (called “Exploratory”), and 4 students in Math. According to Ms. Nerssessian, all the students have intellectual disabilities, although Student has a cognitive disability.
38. Ms. Nerssessian was unable to identify the methodology she uses to teach Student writing, how she was teaching him to write a sentence, or what research-based writing program she was employing. She has not had any professional development in writing or experience with the Framing Your Thoughts program. Although Ms. Nerssessian advised that she uses TouchMath with Student, she could not identify when in Student’s day she does so. Further, despite believing that Student has visual challenges, she has not recommended an assistive technology assessment and could not explain why. (Nerssessian)
39. Kathy Mason, M.Ed., is an Educational Consultant. She conducted an Educational Assessment of Student (using the KTEA) on September 30, 2025, and a Classroom Observation in October 2025. Ms. Mason has taught literacy in multiple settings. Although she is familiar with a variety of reading programs, she is not Wilson- or OG-certified. Student’s literacy and math skills on the KTEA were consistent with Dr. Sadowski’s results and indicated rudimentary academic attainment, clustering at the first- to early second-grade level. His reading scores were much lower than his cognitive ability, his writing was immature, and he lacked math fluency, number sense, and foundational skills. Student’s foundational math skills were still at a kindergarten level. Ms. Mason concluded that Student did not make meaningful progress because his academic scores were well below his cognitive profile, and he was “more competent than his academics showed.” Ms. Mason disagreed that Student has a low cognitive profile, instead describing his profile as variable. Student does not fit into a neat category. According to Ms. Mason, ample research shows that students with borderline-to-low-average IQs learn more slowly but can acquire literacy skills with the right instruction.
Ms. Mason agreed with Dr. Sadowski’s recommendation for full-time, small, language-based classroom instruction to support Student’s ability to overlearn skills to the point of automaticity. She noted that such a setting would provide research-validated, multisensory instruction that engages visual, auditory, and kinesthetic-tactile learning pathways, while also supporting communication and pragmatic language goals and allowing Student to benefit from structured social interaction in a small-group setting. Ms. Mason noted that language-based instruction and programming are appropriate for students with a wide range of learning and developmental difficulties, particularly when embedded across the curriculum and alongside peers with similar functioning. Student requires 2-3 hours/day of ELA instruction using an evidence-based approach (e.g., Lindamood-Bell, Orton-Gillingham, RAVE-O) from an instructor who has undergone the Academy of Orton-Gillingham Practitioners training or similar training for related programs. Student also requires explicit, systematic instruction in math, delivered in а highly structured and carefully sequenced manner. (Mason, P-10)
40. On October 20, 2025, Ms. Mason observed Student’s IIS program. She chose to observe in October because instruction should be “in good swing by then.” In anticipation of her visit, Ms. Mason was provided with a description of the IIS program[10]. Ms. Mason observed a learning environment that was highly structured, with attentive, and well-behaved students. Special Education lessons were delivered in small groups, with students, including Student, receiving ongoing, “enormous” teacher support to complete curricular activities
Ms. Mason did not observe Student’s Wilson tutorial as Ms. Omasta was absent on the day of her observation. However, she communicated extensively with Ms. Omasta via email, who informed Ms. Mason that Student was at a very low Wilson level and was decoding and encoding at a kindergarten level.
Despite these positive characteristics, Ms. Mason determined that the IIS model did not currently provide sufficient intensity, language-based instruction, or specialized curricular resources and methodologies to meet Student’s learning needs. His multiple learning disabilities, including his specific learning disability and significant academic delays, required intensive, specialized, scientifically validated, language-based instruction across the curriculum. Ms. Mason disagreed that Student’s cognitive profile prevented him from benefiting from a language-based program and opined that the strategies and interventions of such a program could develop Student’s foundational literacy. Specifically, Student was so far behind that he needed intensive help across the curriculum, and to be “taught to mastery.”
According to Ms. Mason, the IIS program she observed was not language-based and did not reinforce any specialized instruction designed for students with significant learning disabilities and academic delays. The only specialized instruction Student received was Wilson Reading, which occurred outside the IIS model. Ms. Mason believed she observed a partial inclusion program (due to Student’s inclusion in science class) that provided a combination of modified and supported general education instruction and curriculum, as opposed to specialized instruction, except for reading, although in ELA she never observed Student to be asked to read. According to Ms. Mason, modifying curricula and significantly scaffolding instruction to the point where student responses were minimal (or highly prompted to enable students to answer problems correctly) and highly contextualized, as she had observed, did not constitute effective pedagogy.
Student’s current program did not offer the community of peers and staff with extensive training and expertise working with students having complex learning disabilities, that Ms. Mason recommended for Student. According to Ms. Mason, students who have a hard time learning require explicit instruction that meets them where they are and does not progress until they master it. IIS was not a program for long-term independence; it was aimed at task completion in the immediate present. Student needed coherence between classes and must be immersed in language-based instruction to make progress.
Ms. Mason also opined that Student needed LiPS because he required extensive phonological awareness training, and Wilson did not go far enough for him. Moreover, what he was learning in Wilson was not being reinforced in any other class. Student could not remediate his learning gaps if he learned skills in isolation, without reinforcement throughout the day. (Mason, P-10, P-11)
41. Jaime Hughes is the sixth-grade science teacher at Central Tree. Student is included in her class and receives support from Ms. Nerssessian and a paraprofessional for curriculum and assessment modifications and reteaching. Student is able to participate in class discussions but cannot read the material. All written instructions are read to him, and all written instructions are scribed. Without this support, he could not access the science curriculum. Student is in a small group with two other IIS students and two general education students. Student is a top participant who is always on task in class and is very comfortable asking for help. (Hughes)
42. Student’s November 2025 Progress Report reflected that Student was partially proficient on all his Goals. (P-7, S-2)
43. On December 1, 2025, the Team reconvened to review Ms. Mason’s report, discuss Student's current performance and propose an IEP and placement. Ms. Nerssessian reported that Student was able to access the curriculum given scaffolds and modifications. He had strong participation and verbal skills and benefited from spiral review and opportunities to practice new and unfamiliar skills. In ELA, he required some redirection, and in science, he advocated for the accommodations that he needed. Student utilized study guides, previewed vocabulary, and used а scribe. His assessments were modified to his level, while retaining the essential concepts and vocabulary. Ms. Nerssessian proposed dividing Student’s academic goal into an ELA and а Math goal.
Student’s TVI did not recommend a change in service, reporting that he was working on advocating for а break or support.
Ms. Omasta reported that Student read softly, word by word, and in а robotic fashion. In November, he was reading 84 words per minute, but he struggled with comprehension. In response to Parents’ concern that Student’s Wilson level was at a first-grade level, she explained that his access point for the curriculum was higher. He was able to comprehend more when he was not asked to decode. Student used accommodations within the classroom to support him in increasing his independence and “[h]is skills shine[d] when he [was] given accommodations.”
Jessica Martelli, Student’s OT[11], recommended continued C-Grid OT services but was unsure how the decision to use small-group versus individual sessions was made and could not recall whether that was discussed by the Team. Ms. Martelli reported that in OT, Student was able to copy text more easily than generate it. Most of what he wrote was legible. He used technology such as speech-to-text, although he needed to develop his editing skills. When given cues to use his tools, Student was able to perform the skills.
Kathryn Andrus, Student’s Speech and Language Pathologist,[12] reported that Student made “small” progress, was “moving forward” and she did not see anything of concern. Student was working on increasing his verbal vocabulary without taxing his reading skills, using the Expanding Expressions Tool to turn his sentences into more complex statements.
Parents requested that the District refer Student to an out-of-district placement. The District rejected this option, asserting that Student had just been moved to а lesser restrictive environment, consistent with the prior Team’s recommendation, and he was making consistent academic progress and progress towards his IЕР goals. The District maintained that Student was not an appropriate candidate for the in-district language-based classroom given his educational profile. Rather, the Team proposed that, based upon the complexity and uniqueness of Student's profile, his complicated medical history, and specific learning disabilities, he required an educational placement that would meet his individual learning needs while maintaining his self-esteem and social connectedness. (Martelli, Andrus, Nerssessian, P-12, P-13, S-13)
44. On December 9, 2025, the Team proposed an IEP for the period from December 2, 2025 to December 1, 2026 (the December 2025 IEP), with goals for Communication, Visual Motor Skills, ELA, Specialized Reading, Reading, and Mathematics. The Communication Goal revised prior objectives by abandoning some unmet skills, repeating others, and adding a limited number of new objectives. The Math and Visual Motor Skills Goal largely repeated prior objectives, adding only one new Visual Motor Skills objective (using an editing checklist). The ELA Goal repeated one prior objective while adding new objectives. The Specialized Reading Goal did not clearly indicate whether the objectives developed in September 2025 had been met and revised existing objectives that were not clearly measurable (i.e., Student will “practice …”). However, new objectives were added to the separate Reading Goal.
The December 2025 IEP proposed placement in the IIS substantially separate classroom with the following services. А Grid consultation services from the OT, SLP, Special Education Teacher, TVI, and Reading Teacher; В Grid inclusion services of 5x50 minutes weekly from а paraprofessional (1:3) in science (co-taught by а special education teacher and general education teacher); С Grid OT services 1x30 minutes weekly by an ОТ/СОТА; Speech services 2х30 minutes weekly by an SLP/SLPA; Specialized Reading 5х50 minutes weekly by а Special Education Teacher/Reading Tutor; and Academic Instruction/Support in ELA (1:2), Social Studies and Math 5х50 minutes weekly for each subject by а Special Education Teacher/Paraprofessional. ESY services were also proposed. (P-13, S-14)
45. Ms. Nerssessian could not explain why the ELA Goal, which targeted skills Student required across the curriculum, addressed only the ELA class. She testified that she does not track Student’s progress in science class because Student gets grades in science. Although Ms. Nerssessian acknowledged being responsible for carrying over skills from the ELA goal into science class, she did not know how Student’s skills in the areas targeted by the ELA objectives manifested in science class. According to Ms. Nerssessian, a paraprofessional in Science class helped Student by reading and scribing for him. Student could also access materials by highlighting them on his Chromebook, having the highlighted portion read to him, and using voice typing for open responses. (Nerssessian)
46. Although Student had not met his prior Academic goals and objectives, Ms. Nerssessian did not recommend any different specialized instruction or methodology for the December 2025 IEP. However, she testified that she has incorporated different templates into Student’s day. (Nerssessian)
47. Ms. Martelli acknowledged that the only update she made to Student’s Visual Motor Skills Goal in the December 2025 IEP was to change some minor wording. She agreed that Student has been working on substantially similar OT objectives for almost four IEP cycles. Student had not mastered his goal because he was inconsistent, despite being provided with cues and the use of an editing checklist, and his progress depended on the task's cognitive demands. For instance, when he had to generate text or spell independently, his writing “degraded.” Based upon her consultation services, she indicated that Student was at times able to generalize his skills into his substantially separate classroom, but he is unable to remember and write the entire alphabet without a model. Ms. Martelli could not identify with specificity what specialized instruction Student had been provided in the past or what she was using, indicating she “pulls from various sources” and “professionally judges what he needs.” Although Student uses assistive technology tools, he has not had an assistive technology assessment, nor has one been recommended. (Martelli)
48. Student made only partial progress on his Communication objectives, and Ms. Adrus proposed making some changes to them for the December 2025 IEP based on his presentation during her work with him to date[13]. In her opinion, Student was ready for more challenge but needed more structure to develop his skills. She took past evaluations and Parents’ concerns, especially that they wanted Student on a diploma track, into consideration when drafting her goal and objectives Ms. Andrus meets with Student twice per week for 30 minutes each, but it varies whether she meets with him 1:1 or with another student from Ms. Nerssessian’s classroom. She planned to reduce Student’s dependence on adult support by teaching Student the Expanding Expression Tool, a color-coded scaffolding system, and then fading it. She was uncertain why this tool had not been introduced earlier. As Ms. Andrus’s services focused on language as opposed to reading, she was unsure whether Student could read the contextual clues she was targeting or the descriptors of the Expanding Expression Tool she was using. Ms. Andrus measures progress in relation to Student’s objectives rather than his grade level, and considers Student to be on a positive trajectory, demonstrating progress commensurate with his abilities. (Andrus)
49. Ms. Omasta explained that she proposed dividing Student’s Reading Goal into two goal areas and adding objectives to challenge him. (Omasta)
50. Dr. Sadowski has not reviewed Student’s December 2025 IEP and is not familiar with his current programming. (Sadowski)
51. On December 16, 2025, Parents partially rejected the December 2025 IEP and rejected the proposed placement, asserting that the IEP did not provide the comprehensive, consistent language-based instruction Student required across the school day. While Parents accepted the proposed goals, they did not believe they were sufficient to ensure FAPE or meaningful progress. They also rejected portions of the Service Delivery Grid due to vague staffing designations (e.g., “Reading Tutor,” “Paraprofessional,” and “Faculty and Staff”), arguing these terms failed to clearly identify provider qualifications and responsibilities and did not support informed consent. Parents further maintained that paraprofessionals were not appropriately qualified to deliver Student’s specialized academic instruction. (Mother, P-13)
52. Ms. Nerssessian could not explain Student’s lack of progress in coin counting, but she added more visuals and manipulatives into his instruction to help him master the skill. Student also uses a calculator. Student is taught the sixth-grade math curriculum, which Ms. Nersessian explained he accesses with accommodations, despite having performed at the first-grade math level the year before. Ms. Nerssessian continues to practice fluency and math remediation with Student (although she could not identify when she provides this support) but acknowledged that he has not been exposed to the math curriculum of second through fifth grades and has not even mastered first-grade math skills. According to Ms. Nerssessian, the specialized instruction she provides Student in Math involves using tactile aids, spiral review, and practice. Ms. Nersessian acknowledged that Student’s multiplication objective had recurred across multiple IEPs, and while she believed he was capable of learning multiplication, she was unsure how Student could demonstrate that he had mastered this skill, as he currently uses a multiplication chart. She did not have any data on Student’s accuracy without the chart. (Nerssessian, P-15, S-15)
53. Student’s January 2026 Progress Report Student’s January 2026 Progress indicated that he was partially proficient on all his Goals. (P-14, S-15)
54. Ms. Martelli reported that Student will meet the Visual Motor Skills Goal by the end of the IEP period. However, during her testimony, Ms. Martelli could not explain the basis for this expectation, especially given that Student has not met these objectives for four years. Ms. Martelli considers Student to be “more fluid” and requiring fewer prompts than he used to, but he is still inconsistent and needs to build his “stamina.” Student has made nonlinear and inconsistent progress, as he cannot consistently demonstrate skills day-to-day. Student cannot use his editing checklist independently; when copying text, he requires minimal support, but when generating text, he requires moderate (50%) support. Student cannot write a sentence with proper mechanics independently, but he has made progress with technology, particularly his voice-to-text feature, without reminders. (Martelli, P-14)
55. Ms. Omasta believes that Student has made progress. He began the year at Wilson Level 1.3 and is now at Level 2.3. She could not compare his progress to past progress reports because a different program was used for reading and spelling. She believes that his eight-week trial of Wilson did not provide sufficient data because the program is not meant to be used in that way. Ms. Omasta provides Student’s pull-out instruction with four other students, but she works with Student mostly in a 1:1 setting on his goal. Although past progress reports reflected mastery of discrete skills, Student did not demonstrate them when she assessed him. She, therefore, chose to begin with foundational reading skills. Ms. Omasta does not follow Wilson in a scripted way because she adds aspects and activities that Student needs. Although the Wilson manual calls for 90 minutes of Wilson per day, it also states that it can be done in 45-minute increments. During Student’s daily 50-minute session with Ms. Omasta, Student also works on Read Naturally and engages in other independent activities. Because he tires easily, consistent with his cognitive profile, Ms. Omasta gives Student breaks and, as such, only does Wilson for approximately 20 minutes per day.[14] Thus, she opined that she is following the Wilson program even though it is taking longer, and Student is still making progress. s. Ms. Omasta was unaware of whether Ms. Nerssessian also used the strategies used in tutorials in the IIS classroom or in the science class. (Omasta)
56. Student’s April 2026 Progress Report indicated that Student was partially proficient in all his Goals. (P-14, S-15)
57. Although Student’s seizures have been controlled by medication for several years, in February 2026, he began to experience seizures again. The seizures do not appear to have affected Student’s recall. (Mother)
58. Mother believes Student is being moved along without mastering skills. According to Mother, the District is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, and it’s insufficient for Student. (Mother) Based on their experts' opinions, Parents believe that Student is capable of learning to read, write, and do math, but he requires individualized, structured, multisensory, language-based instruction throughout his day. (Mother, Father)
59. Student has been accepted at Windham Woods, an unapproved program in New Hampshire, and Willow Hill, a DESE-approved program. Both programs offer individualized instruction and reading as a separate subject, five times per week, distinct from ELA. (Mother)
DISCUSSION:
A. Legal Standards
1. Free Appropriate Public Education in the Least Restrictive Environment
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was enacted "to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education" (FAPE).[15] To provide a student with a FAPE, a school district must follow identification, evaluation, program design, and implementation practices that ensure that each student with a disability receives an IEP that is: custom tailored to the student's unique learning needs; "reasonably calculated to confer a meaningful educational benefit"; and ensures access to and participation in the general education setting and curriculum as appropriate for that student so as "to enable the student to progress effectively in the content areas of the general curriculum.”[16] Under state and federal special education law, a school district has an obligation to provide the services that comprise FAPE in the "least restrictive environment" (LRE).[17] This means that to the maximum extent appropriate, a student must be educated with other students who do not have disabilities, and that "removal . . . from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services, cannot be achieved satisfactorily."[18] "The goal, then, is to find the least restrictive educational environment that will accommodate the child's legitimate needs."[19]
The IEP must be individually tailored for the student for whom it is created.[20] When developing the IEP, the Team must consider parental concerns; the student's strengths, disabilities, recent evaluations and present level of achievement; the academic, developmental and functional needs of the child; and the child’s potential for growth.[21] Evaluating an IEP requires viewing it as a "a snapshot, not a retrospective. In striving for 'appropriateness,’ an IEP must take into account what was . . . objectively reasonable . . . at the time the IEP was promulgated.”[22]
While goals and objectives are written for a 12-month period[23], the decision to amend them at the end of that period is fact-specific and subject to the Team’s assessment of the Student’s circumstances[24] (i.e., whether the goals remain calculated to address the student’s identified areas of need). Courts have held that a student's failure to master IEP goals does not compel the conclusion that the IEP was not reasonably calculated to provide a FAPE, particularly where the student made progress towards achieving those goals.[25] However, if a student makes “no progress under a particular IEP in a particular year, … the propriety of an identical IEP in the next year may be questionable.”[26] Therefore, to the extent that Student’s IEP goals were not mastered at the end of the January 2024 IEP period and were repeated, “the proper inquiry is whether [the student] made any progress on those goals, such that the District could reasonably have concluded that those goals were ‘likely to produce progress’ the next year.”[27]
At the same time, FAPE does not require a school district to provide special education and related services that will maximize a student’s educational potential,[28] and appropriate progress will look different for each student.[29] An individual analysis of a student’s progress in his/her areas of need is key.[30] The educational services provided to a student, therefore, need not be "the only appropriate choice, or the choice of certain selected experts, or the child's parents' first choice, or even the best choice."[31]
2. Procedural Violations
In addition to providing Parents with substantive rights, the IDEA provides both students and parents with procedural rights.[32] Hence, “a [fact-finder’s] inquiry … is twofold. First, has the State complied with the procedures set forth in the Act? Second, is the [IEP] developed through the Act’s procedures reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits?”[33] Although a finding of procedural violations does not necessarily entitle appellants to relief, a procedural violation that results in substantive harm constitutes a denial of a FAPE for which relief may be granted.[34] A hearing officer may find that a child did not receive a FAPE if the procedural inadequacies impeded the child’s right to a FAPE; significantly impeded the parent’s opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provisions of a FAPE to the parent’s child; or caused a deprivation of educational benefits.[35]
3. Compensatory Services
“Certain remedies are available to redress violations of the IDEA.”[36] Hearing officers may award relief, including compensatory education and reimbursement of educational expenses, both of which are considered equitable remedies under the IDEA. [37] Compensatory education consists of “future special education and related services to ensure or remedy a past denial of a FAPE.”[38]
A child's claim for compensatory education begins to accrue when his or her IEP is so inappropriate that the child is receiving no real educational benefit.[39]
4. Burden of Persuasion
In a due process proceeding, the burden of proof is on the moving party.[40] If the evidence is closely balanced, the moving party will not prevail.[41] In the instant case, as the moving party, Parents bear this burden.
B. Credibility and Application of Legal Standards[42]:
It is not disputed that Student is a student with a disability who is entitled to special education services under state and federal law. The fundamental issues in dispute are set out under ISSUES IN DISPUTE, supra.
Based upon three days of oral testimony, the extensive exhibits introduced into evidence, thoughtful arguments of Counsel, and a review of the applicable law, I conclude that Parents have met their burden on their claims. My reasoning follows.
At the outset, I address my credibility assessments of all the witnesses. Mother and Father were credible witnesses. Their testimony was generally consistent with one another, supported by documentary evidence, and corroborated in part by District witnesses. They acknowledged that Student had made social and behavioral progress and that District staff cared about him, which enhanced their credibility. Their testimony regarding their longstanding concerns about reading instruction, academic progress, and placement was supported by Team meeting notes, correspondence, and their partial rejection of the January 2025 IEP. However, Parents understandably viewed the case through the lens of advocacy for their child. Accordingly, I accord substantial weight to their testimony regarding their observations of Student and their participation in the IEP process, while giving less weight to their opinions on specialized educational methodology.
Dr. Sadowski was a persuasive witness. Her testimony was thorough, balanced, and grounded in extensive testing, longitudinal record review, and specialized expertise. She demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of Student's complicated medical and neurocognitive profile and thoroughly explained why Student's academic achievement was inconsistent with his demonstrated learning potential. Her opinions were supported by objective testing data spanning multiple years and withstood the challenges raised during cross-examination. Importantly, Dr. Sadowski's testimony addressed the central dispute in this case: whether Student's educational program was producing meaningful educational benefit. Her conclusion that Student was not mastering foundational skills, was not generalizing learning, and was falling further behind academically despite years of intervention was supported by the objective record. I therefore afford her opinion significant weight.
Ms. Mason was also a credible witness. Her assessment and classroom observation were detailed and consistent with the documentary record, Dr. Sadowski's conclusions, and the testimony of Ms. Nerssessian and Ms. Martelli, which reflected a concerning inability to identify the specialized instruction in Student’s daily programming. Ms. Mason persuasively explained why extensive accommodations, modifications, and adult prompting should not be confused with specialized instruction and why Student's current program lacked the intensity and coherence necessary to remediate his significant learning disabilities. Particularly compelling was Ms. Mason's testimony that Student's instruction focused primarily on enabling participation in the academic activities he was presented with rather than systematically remediating his substantial deficits in literacy and mathematics. This testimony was corroborated by Ms. Nerssessian’s inability to explain when during Student’s day and schedule she provided remediation, or what specialized instruction she used to teach comprehension, writing, and math. I, thus, afford substantial weight to Ms. Mason’s opinion.
Ms. Ross was a sincere and credible witness regarding Student’s classroom functioning, effort, social strengths, and the support she provided him at Glenwood. Her testimony that Student made some progress, grew in his confidence, and moved from kindergarten-level to approximately first-grade-level reading within the SRA program was credible. However, her conclusions regarding the sufficiency of Student’s academic programming and progress are not afforded similar evidentiary weight. She acknowledged that she was not trained in any language-based instructional methodologies (i.e., Wilson, Orton-Gillingham, LiPS), and she was unable to explain why Student’s academic goal was functional at best and remained largely unchanged across multiple IEP cycles despite agreeing that several goals addressed functional academics over multiple years, without Student having achieved independence. Also concerning was her support of the January 2025 IEP, which called for less inclusion despite her own testimony that Student was performing well in the inclusion setting at Glenwood. In addition, her failure to follow up on reviewing the data she had gathered from Extended Evaluation was troubling.
Ms. DeAngelis was also generally credible. Although not a member of any Team, she testified knowledgeably about District programs, staffing, and the rationale for the District’s placement recommendations. Her testimony helped explain the District’s view that Student did not fit neatly into either the AIM program or the STEP/life-skills program and that the IIS model was developed for students with intermediate profiles. Nevertheless, I ascribe less weight to her testimony where it conflicted with the objective academic data and the independent evaluators' opinions. In particular, I was not persuaded by the District’s position, which Ms. DeAngelis supported, that Student’s cognitive profile rendered him inappropriate for a language-based program, in light of the persuasive testimony from Dr. Sadowski and Ms. Mason that language-based instruction can be appropriate for students with a wide range of cognitive abilities.
While Ms. Nerssessian was credible in her description of Student's current programming and functioning in the IIS classroom, her testimony revealed significant limitations in her knowledge and implementation of specialized language-based instruction. She was unfamiliar with some of the reading/language-based methodologies recommended by the independent evaluators. Her testimony revealed the extensive accommodations, modifications, prompting, and adult support Student required to access academic content. However, it was concerning that, other than testifying as to the accommodations she utilized with Student, Ms. Nerssessian was unable to describe the specialized instructional methodologies she employed or how they addressed his learning needs. Accordingly, while I credit her factual observations, I accord limited weight to her opinion regarding the IIS program’s ability to adequately address Student's significant learning disabilities.
Ms. Omasta was a credible witness regarding Student's performance within the Wilson instruction she delivered. She demonstrated familiarity with Student's reading profile and acknowledged his continued weaknesses in fluency, comprehension, and spelling. Her testimony reliably established that Student entered sixth grade working at the earliest stages of Wilson, despite years of prior reading intervention, and she candidly explained that she only provided 20 minutes of Wilson instruction daily, based on Student’s stamina and fatigue tolerance.
Ms. Hughes was also a credible witness. Notably, her testimony supported Parents' contention that Student was unable to read instructional materials, required all written content to be read aloud, relied on extensive modifications, and needed substantial adult support to participate successfully in class. Her testimony was consistent with the documentary evidence, and I accord it significant weight.
Finally, Ms. Andrus and Ms. Martelli were generally credible regarding the respective services each personally provided during Student’s sixth-grade year. Both testified in a straightforward manner that they had worked with Student for only a few months and had not been involved in the development or implementation of his earlier IEPs. Both also readily conceded that they did not have information about previous interventions used with Student. However, given these knowledge limitations, I gave less weight to their opinions regarding the overall adequacy of Student’s educational program and long-term progress.
It is in this context that I now turn to the issues before me.
1. The January 2025 IEP Was Not Reasonably Calculated To Offer Student A FAPE In The LRE.
I examine the January 2025 IEP based upon the information available to the Team at the time it was developed.[43] At that time, the Team possessed substantial evidence of Student’s strengths and areas of need from multiple District assessments. Additionally, it had sufficient information regarding Student’s progress and performance, as by the time of the Team meeting, Student had been part of the Developmental Program at Glenwood, taught by Ms. Ross for 3 years, receiving consistent services for which progress had been regularly reported.
The District argues that Student made progress. While there is evidence that Student made progress toward certain objectives, advanced through portions of the SRA program, increased his level of participation, and improved his positive classroom performance, the IDEA requires consideration of whether the progress is appropriate in light of the student's circumstances.[44] Here, Student continued working on substantially the same academic skills year after year, and the proposed goals and objectives in the January 2025 IEP remained largely unchanged from the previous IEPs. Ms. Ross, who was responsible for proposing and delivering the services associated with Student’s academic goals, could not provide any reasons as to why Student had been unable to meet his objectives. Additionally, despite being aware of updated testing highlighting Student’s limited progress in foundational academic skills, Ms. Ross did not, confusingly, propose separating Student’s academic goal into skill areas, such as phonics, to address more specific skill deficits.
Nor was the proposal to reduce inclusion time in the January 2025 IEP appropriate or supported by any credible data. Whether a school district complied with the LRE requirement depends first on
“whether education in the regular classroom, with the use of supplementary aids and services, can be achieved satisfactorily…. If education in the regular classroom cannot be achieved satisfactorily, we ask ‘whether the school has included the child in school programs with nondisabled children to the maximum extent appropriate.’…[I]f a school ‘has given no serious consideration to including the child in a regular class with such supplementary aids and services and to modifying the regular curriculum to accommodate the child, then it has most likely violated’ the LRE requirement.” [45]
Here, Ms. Ross testified that Student did well in inclusion classes at Glenwood, and she had no concerns about his ability to access the same general education classes in middle school. I further credit her testimony, as a member of Student’s Team (as opposed to Ms. DeAngelis’s who was not a Team member), that Student’s inclusion time was reduced to accommodate “the middle school model” at Central Tree, which, as it is not based upon consideration of Student’s unique needs or abilities, was improper.[46]
The District's subsequent procedural failures compounded the substantive deficiencies of the January 2025 IEP. Specifically, in February 2025, Parents obtained a comprehensive neuropsychological evaluation from Dr. Sadowski and promptly provided it to the District in or about April 2025. The evaluation contained significant new information regarding Student's diagnoses, educational needs, and lack of meaningful progress. Dr. Sadowski concluded that Student met the criteria for Specific Learning Disabilities in reading, written language, and mathematics. She further concluded that Student did not meet the criteria for an Intellectual Disability because his adaptive functioning fell within the low-average range and was substantially stronger than would be expected for an individual with an intellectual disability. Most importantly, she concluded that Student was not making meaningful educational progress and recommended a comprehensive language-based educational program.
Pursuant to 603 CMR 28.04(5)(f), the Team was required to reconvene within 10 school days of receiving Dr. Sadowski’s independent evaluation. No such timely meeting was scheduled, and the meeting eventually scheduled prior to the end of the school year was canceled due to staff unavailability and was not reconvened until the start of the next school year. Consequently, Student completed the spring of fifth grade and transitioned to middle school without Team consideration of recommendations directly relevant to his programming and placement, depriving Parents of meaningful participation. This violation was not harmless. Dr. Sadowski recommended significant changes to Student’s program, and timely Team review could have informed placement decisions and resulted in earlier implementation of appropriate services. The District’s failure to convene a timely Team meeting upon receiving Dr. Sadowski’s evaluation, therefore impeded parental participation and deprived Student of educational opportunity, resulting in a denial of FAPE. [47]
The District's handling of the Extended Evaluation was also inconsistent with the IDEA’s procedural requirements. In May 2025, the District proposed an Extended Evaluation to assess Student's participation and performance in light of additional inclusion opportunities.[48] The purpose of the evaluation was to collect data on Student's ability to function successfully in a less restrictive educational setting to inform placement decisions. Pursuant to 603 CMR 28.05(2)(b)(3), if a parent consents to an extended evaluation, the Team must “document its findings and determine what evaluation time period is necessary and the types of information needed to develop an IEP, if appropriate. The Team may decide to meet at intervals during the extended evaluation, but in all cases shall reconvene promptly to develop or complete an IEP when the evaluation is complete.”[49] Here, data collection forms were created, but the Team never reviewed the results of the Extended Evaluation. That meeting was canceled as noted above and was not rescheduled prior to the end of the school year, so discussion of the results of the Extended Evaluation never occurred, and Parents never received any data therefrom. Ms. Ross testified that she did not know what became of the information collected. No discussion of the evaluation occurred at the August 2025 Team meeting, either, nor is any meaningful consideration of the results reflected in the documents submitted in the record.
This failure is particularly significant because opportunities for inclusion and placement were a central issue of dispute between the parties at that time, and data pertaining to Student’s participation and performance in inclusion had been gathered by agreement. Having undertaken the evaluation that the District had recommended in the first instance, the District was obligated to complete the process and consider the resulting information. Instead, placement decisions were made without review of the very evidence the District had identified as important. As a result, Parents were deprived of information necessary to participate meaningfully in placement discussions, and the Team was deprived of potentially important evidence regarding Student's educational needs. I therefore find that the Team's failure to review the Extended Evaluation also constituted a denial of FAPE to Student. [50]
The August 2025 Team meeting and the resulting Amendment to the January 2025 IEP raise additional concerns. Although Dr. Sadowski specifically cautioned against employing Wilson as a reading methodology for Student, and despite the District’s own records indicating that Wilson had not previously been successful, the Team chose to use this methodology with Student at Central Tree, noting this in the August 2025 Amendment. Ms. Omasta testified that the Specialized Reading Goal was developed based on the Wilson methodology. Moreover, although Parents requested a language-based program and Dr. Sadowski recommended one, the District proposed the IIS model. It is concerning that the District dismissed Parents’ request to assess the appropriateness of the AIM program for Student based solely on his FSIQ,[51] particularly as under 603 CMR 28.05(2)(a)(1)(b) “… the type of disability shall not define the needs of the student and shall in no way limit the services, programs, or inclusion opportunities provided to the student.” Here, the District did not submit a formal referral to the AIM program, nor did it consider what supports or interventions Student might require to participate in that language-based program. The District also failed to offer Student language-based interventions within the IIS classroom, despite the Team agreeing to change his Disability Category from Communication to a Specific Learning Disability and Dr. Sadowski’s extensive recommendations that Student receive comprehensive language-based instructional supports.[52] Moreover, no language-based instructional professional development was provided to Student’s IIS providers, also contrary to Dr. Sadowski’s recommendations. Although Ms. DeAngelis testified that language-based strategies can be implemented in any setting, Ms. Nerssessian candidly acknowledged she had no training in language-based programming other than her beginning Wilson certification. She further conceded that her knowledge of Wilson did not assist her in addressing the multiple components of language-based instruction or writing that Student required.
As a result, considering the record as a whole, I conclude that the January 2025 IEP was not reasonably calculated to provide Student with effective educational progress based upon the information available to the Team at that time. I further find that the District's failure to timely review Dr. Sadowski's evaluation and its failure to complete and review the Extended Evaluation constituted procedural violations that significantly impeded parental participation and deprived Student of educational opportunity in the Team’s proposed Amendment to the January 2025 IEP. Accordingly, I find that the District denied Student a FAPE through both substantive and procedural violations of the IDEA with regard to the January 2025 IEP and its subsequent Amendment.
2. The December 2025 IEP Was And Is Not Reasonably Calculated To Offer Student A FAPE In The LRE.
By the time the Team proposed the December 2025 IEP, the District possessed significantly more information regarding Student's needs than it had possessed in January.
The Team had reviewed Dr. Sadowski's neuropsychological evaluation and her recommendations. The Team also had the benefit of Ms. Mason's independent educational evaluation and observation, as well as her strikingly similar conclusions to Dr. Sadowski’s. Ms. Mason also found that Student lacked foundational literacy and mathematics skills and recommended full-time language-based programming. After observing the IIS program, she concluded that the model relied heavily on accommodations, modifications, prompting, and adult support rather than specialized language-based remediation. Ms. Nerssessian’s testimony confirms the accuracy of Ms. Mason’s observations.
The evidence is overwhelming that at the December 2025 Team meeting, the District failed to meaningfully respond to data showing that Student was not making effective progress.[53] Ms. Nerssessian could not explain why Student’s objectives, which she reiterated in several goal areas, remained unmet despite years of repetition and intervention, or identify any specialized instruction she was using with Student to enable him to make progress at this time. Ms. Martelli also testified that, despite minor changes and the introduction of one new objective, Student’s fine motor skill objectives had remained unchanged for years, and she, too, could not explain what specialized instruction she was using to enable him to make progress.
Districts must respond when existing interventions are not producing meaningful educational benefits.[54] Here, despite years of instruction utilizing substantially the same framework, Student continued to demonstrate severe deficits in phonological processing, decoding, reading fluency, reading comprehension, spelling, written language, and mathematics. Yet no substantial instructional changes were made, and, more concerningly, some of the objectives that Student failed to meet were abandoned or revised.[55]
Further, despite the recommendations from both Dr. Sadowski and Ms. Mason, the District continued to propose the IIS placement in the December 2025 IEP, which I conclude did not provide the comprehensive language-based programming that Student required. The IIS model primarily relies on modifications and accommodations that enable Student to participate in the curriculum rather than systematically remediating the underlying causes of his academic difficulties. Although Ms. Omasta provides specialized reading instruction, it is not delivered with fidelity[56]. Moreover, Ms. Omasta’s and Ms. Nerssessian’s testimony was glaringly devoid of any evidence that the strategies taught in the reading tutorial are reinforced throughout the day. There was no evidence presented that any language-based strategies were implemented in the IIS classroom or otherwise integrated throughout Student’s school day. Further, it was undisputed that the IIS Program, like the Developmental Program at Glenwood, is largely designed for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Student does not have an Intellectual Impairment Disability category on his IEP and, despite this, has been exclusively grouped with peers of that cognitive profile.
According to Ms. DeAngelis’s testimony and the N1 (prior written notice form) for the December 2025 IEP, the District refused Parents’ request for an out-of-district program because the Glenwood Team recommended a lesser restrictive setting for him, with more inclusion opportunities, and his current setting satisfies this criterion as Student does not participate in the life skills aspects of the STEP program and is taught with students of varying profiles. I find this rationale concerning for several reasons. First, the Glenwood Team did not recommend a less restrictive setting or more inclusion. To the contrary, in January 2025, the Glenwood Team recommended decreased inclusion and placement in the Developmental Program. In addition, Student’s current setting is not less restrictive than the one he had while attending Glenwood. The LRE mandate applies when a child is removed from the general education setting and placed in a special education class. It does not apply to the choice between two special education classes, contrary to Ms. DeAngelis’s testimony and the N1 statement.[57] Moreover, the LRE standard implicates an eligible student’s access to his nondisabled peers, not to peers of varying cognitive abilities and disabilities. That Student’s peers in the IIS classroom have higher cognitive profiles than peers in the Developmental Program does not render that classroom any less restrictive.
In conclusion, I find that the December 2025 IEP remained inappropriate because it failed to adopt programming reasonably calculated to address Student's demonstrated need for comprehensive language-based instruction and was based on an inaccurate analysis of the LRE. Accordingly, I conclude that the December 2025 IEP was not reasonably calculated to offer Student a FAPE in the LRE.
3. Student Is Entitled To Compensatory Education.
Because I have concluded that both the January 2025 and December 2025 IEPs denied Student a FAPE, I find that Student is entitled to compensatory services in the form of specialized reading/spelling and mathematics services to remedy the denial of FAPE. Student’s entitlement to compensatory education spans the time period from January 2025 through the date of the issuance of this Decision. However, Parents did not offer any evidence regarding the extent of the compensatory services they seek that will “ensure or remedy a past denial of a FAPE.”[58] As such, the Team must convene to assess and determine an appropriate compensatory service plan.
4. Student Requires Placement In A Full-Day, Language-Based Special Education Program.
As relief, Parents also requested a prospective placement in a full-day, language-based special education program with small-group, explicit, systematic instruction across academic domains, at the District’s expense. As the December 2025 IEP has not yet expired, to the extent the District is able to create or locate an in-District program consistent with the terms of this Decision, supra, it is ordered to do so prospectively. If the District is unable to identify such an appropriate in-District program, it shall locate an out-of-District program and fund it at public expense, including transportation to and from school.
ORDER:
The January 2025 and December 2025 IEPs denied Student a FAPE. Student is entitled to compensatory services for the time period from January 2025 through the date of the issuance of this Decision, consistent with the guidance delineated above. The District must reconvene the IEP Team within 15 calendar days of this Decision to assess and determine the services owed.
The District is also ordered to create or locate an in-District program consistent with the terms of this Decision for the duration of the December 2025 IEP. If the District is unable to identify such appropriate in-District program necessary to provide FAPE consistent with this Decision, the District is hereby ordered to locate an out-of-District program and fund it at public expense, including round-trip transportation.
So Ordered,
By the Hearing Officer,
/s/ Alina Kantor Nir
Alina Kantor Nir, Hearing Officer
June 29, 2026
Footnotes
[1] I have carefully considered all evidence presented in this matter. I make findings of fact, however, only as necessary to resolve the issues presented. Consequently, all evidence and all aspects of each witness’s testimony, although considered, is not included if it was not needed to resolve said issues.
[2] The following tools were utilized: Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fifth Edition (WISC-V); Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Third Edition (Vineland-3) Parent/Caregiver and Teacher Rating Forms; Woodcock-Johnson-III, Parent’s Checklist; Behavioral Observation; and Record Review. (P-3)
[3] Ms. Ross is not certified or trained in Wilson or Orton-Gillingham methodologies and was not familiar with RAVE-O as a reading methodology. (Ross)
[4] STEP is the program name for WRSD’s middle school Developmental Program.
[5] The AIM Program serves students with specific reading and writing learning disabilities using the Landmark model, with instruction designed for students with average to high cognitive abilities who work on grade-level content while developing reading and writing skills across the curriculum. Although Student was never formally referred to the AIM Program, Ms. DeAngelis testified that, through informal conversations, it appeared that Student’s cognitive profile did not make him an appropriate match for the program. (DeAngelis)
[6] The following assessment tools were utilized: Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-V); Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function, Second Edition (BRIEF-2): Parent & Teacher; Connors Continuous Performance Test, Third Edition (СРТ-3); Delis Kaplan Executive Function System (DKEFS); Developmental Neuropsychological Assessment Second Edition (NEPSY-11); Rey Complex Figure Test (RCFT); California Verbal Learning Test for Children (CVLT-C); Child & Adolescent Memory Profile (ChAMP); Wide Range Assessment of Memory & Learning, Third Edition (WRAML-3); Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test, Fourth Edition (EOWPVT-4); Receptive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test, Fourth Edition (ROWPVT-4); CELF-5; Social Language Development Test, Elementary, Normative Update (SLDT-E:NU); Grooved Pegboard Test; Hooper Test of Visual Organization (HVOT); Judgement of Line Orientation, Short Form (JLO-S); Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing, Second Edition (СТОРР-2); Gray Oral Reading Test, Fifth Edition (GORT-5); WIAT-4; Behavior Assessment System for Children, Third Edition (BASC-3): Parent & Teacher Multidimensional; Anxiety Scale for Children Second Edition (MASC-2): Parent Report Developmental History Questionnaire; and Review of Past Evaluations & School Records. (P-8)
[7] Dr. Sadowski disagreed that Student’s standard score of 86 in Verbal Comprehension was an “outlier” in the testing since prior private cognitive testing indicated that Student’s verbal comprehension score was 81. She opined that the District verbal comprehension score of 68 was, in fact, the outlier.
[8] Further, while Student displayed some vulnerabilities in attention control, both Parent and Teachers ratings did not indicate concerns with attention, executive functioning, or hyperactivity, and thus, а diagnosis of attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was not warranted.
[9] Although the Team discussed Student’s progress in the inclusion setting at Glenwood, it did not discuss the Extended Evaluation, nor was there any reference to the Extended Evaluation in the N1 resulting from this Team meeting. (DeAngelis, P-9)
[10] The description advised that “The Intensive Instructional Support Classroom provides а small, structured, and supportive setting for students who benefit from individualized attention and structure throughout the school day. With а certified special education teacher and support staff, students receive focused instruction in academics, organization, and social-emotional skills. The goal is to help each student grow in confidence, independence, and success both in this setting and in general education classes when ready. We are dedicated to creating a nurturing and consistent environment where every student feels valued, supported, and confident in their growth. Families are important partners in this process, and regular communication ensures we work together to help their child reach their fullest potential.”
[11] Ms. Martelli has been employed in the District since the start of the 2025-2026 school year. As Student’s OT, she consults with Ms. Nerssessian regularly. Prior to working with Student, she reviewed his active IEP and progress reports. Although Ms. Martelli typically pulled Student out of class either individually or with one other student, she sometimes pushed into the substantially separate classroom. (Martelli)
[12] Ms. Andrus has worked in that capacity at Central Tree since 2016, although she joined the District in 2004. She received her AT certificate in 2015. Ms. Andrus holds multiple national and state certifications. In preparation for working with Student, Ms. Andrus reviewed Student’s then-current IEP, SLP report, Dr. Sadowski’s neuropsychological report, TVI report, and progress reports. Although she had planned to meet with Student’s Glenwood SLP for a “handoff”, this did not happen. (Andrus)
[13] Ms. Andrus acknowledged that the first two objectives were similar to past objectives, but she considered them to have been “adjusted”. (Andrus)
[14] Ms. Omasta provides her reading services within the confines of Central Tree’s middle school schedule, and, therefore, cannot break up Student’s Wilson instruction throughout the day to ensure that he receives a full 45 minutes.
[15] 20 U.S.C. §1400 (d)(1)(A).
[16] See 20 U.S.C. §1401(9), (26), (29); 603 CMR 28.05(4)(b); C.D. by and through M.D. v. Natick Public School District, 924 F.3d 621, 629 (1st Cir. 2019); Sebastian M. v. King Philip Reg'l Sch. Dist., 685 F.3d 84, 84 (1st Cir. 2012); Lessard v. Wilton Lyndeborough Cooperative Sch. Dist., 518 F. 3d 18 (1st Cir. 2008); C.G. ex rel. A.S. v. Five Town Comty. Sch. Dist., 513 F. 3d 279 (1st Cir. 2008).
[17] 20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(5)(A); 34 CFR 300.114(a)(2)(i); M.G.L. c. 71 B, §§2, 3; 603 CMR 28.06(2)(c).
[18] 20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(5)(A); C.D. v. Natick Pub. Sch. Dist., 924 F. 3d at 631 (internal citations omitted).
[19] C.G. ex rel. A.S., 513 F.3d at 285.
[20] Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 580 U.S. 386, 402 (2017).
[21] 34 CFR §300.324(a)(i-v); Endrew F., 137 S. Ct. at 999; D.B. ex rel. Elizabeth B. v. Esposito, 675 F.3d 26, 34 (1st Cir. 2012); N. Reading Sch. Comm. v. Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals of Mass. Dep't of Educ., 480 F. Supp. 2d 479, 489 (D. Mass. 2007) (“The First Circuit has characterized the federal floor, which defines the minimum that must be offered to all handicapped children, as providing a meaningful, beneficial educational opportunity, and that Court has stated that a handicapped child's educational program must be reasonably calculated to provide effective results and demonstrable improvement in the various educational and personal skills identified as special needs”) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
[22] Roland M. v. Concord Sch. Comm., 910 F.2d 983, 992 (1st Cir. 1990).
[23] See Letter to Butler, 213 IDELR 118 (OSERS 1988) (annual goals are statements that describe what a child with a disability can reasonably be expected to accomplish within a 12-month period in the child's special education program).
[24] See 34 C.F.R. 300.324(b) (“Each public agency must ensure that, subject to paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this section, the IEP Team— (i) Reviews the child's IEP periodically, but not less than annually, to determine whether the annual goals for the child are being achieved; and(ii) Revises the IEP, as appropriate…”) (emphasis added).
[25] See O'Toole By and Through O'Toole v. Olathe Dist. Schools Unified School Dist. No. 233, 144 F.3d 692, 707 (10th Cir.1998) (where student was “making adequate progress on” IEP goals, “[t]he fact that she had not fully met most of those objectives [did] not indicate she was not getting educational benefit”); see also Schroll v. Bd. of Ed. of Champaign Comm. Unit Sch. Dist. # 4, 2007 WL 2681207, at *5 (C.D.Ill. Aug. 10, 2007) (“[a]n IEP is not inappropriate simply because it does not change significantly on an annual basis … [or] because the student does not meet any of the IEP goals”) (citing Carlisle Area Sch. v. Scott P., 62 F.3d 520, 533–34 (3rd Cir.1995)).
[26] Schroll, 2007 WL 2681207, at *5; see also Carlisle, 62 F.3d at 534 (“where a student fails to make any progress under an IEP in one year, we would be hard pressed to understand how the subsequent year's IEP, if simply a copy of that which failed to produce any gains in a prior year, could be appropriate”).
[27] See James D. v. Bd. of Educ. of Aptakisic-Tripp Cmty. Consol. Sch. Dist. No. 102, 642 F. Supp. 2d 804, 826–28 (N.D. Ill. 2009).
[28] Bd. of Educ. of the Hendrick Hudson Central Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 197, n.21 (1982) (“Whatever Congress meant by an “appropriate” education, it is clear that it did not mean a potential-maximizing education”); see N. Reading Sch. Comm., 480 F. Supp. 2d at 488 (“The focus of inquiry under 20 U.S.C. §1415(e)(i) must recognize the IDEA's modest goal of an appropriate, rather than an ideal, education”).
[29] Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 400-401; see also 603 CMR 28.02(17).
[30] Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 388 (“The nature of the IEP process, from the initial consultation through state administrative proceedings, ensures that parents and school representatives will fully air their respective opinions on the degree of progress a child's IEP should pursue”); see K.E. ex rel. K.E. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 15, 647 F.3d 795, 809 (8th Cir. 2011) (explaining that the court would not compare the student to her nondisabled peers since the key question was whether the student made gains in her areas of need).
[31] G.D. Westmoreland Sch. Dist., 930 F.2d 942, 948-949 (1st Cir. 1991).
[32] See Deal v. Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 392 F.3d 840, 853-54 (6th Cir. 2004).
[33] See Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 404.
[34] Deal, 392 F.3d at 854.
[35] 34 CFR 300.513 (a)(2); see MM ex rel. DM v. Sch. Dist. of Greenville Cty., 303 F.3d 523, 533 (4th Cir. 2002).
[36] Roe v. Healey, 78 F.4th 11, 16 (1st Cir. 2023).
[37] See Pihl v. Mass. Dep't of Educ., 9 F.3d 184, 188–89 (1st Cir. 1993); Diaz-Fonseca v. Puerto Rico, 451 F.3d 13, 19 (1st Cir. 2006).
[38] Doucette v. Georgetown Pub. Schs., 936 F.3d 16, 32 (1st Cir. 2019).
[39] See Maine Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 35 v. Mr. R., 321 F.3d 9, 18 (1st Cir. 2003); see also Pihl, 9 F.3d at 188 (“we have no difficulty in joining those circuits that have decided that compensatory education is available to remedy past deprivations”).
[40] Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 62 (2008).
[41] Id. (places the burden of proof in an administrative hearing on the party seeking relief).
[42] In making my determinations, I rely on the facts I have found as set forth in the Findings of Facts, above, and incorporate them by reference to avoid restating them except where necessary.
[43] Roland M., 910 F.2d at 992.
[44] See Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 400-401.
[45] See Oberti v. Bd. of Educ. of Borough of Clementon Sch. Dist., 995 F.2d 1204, 1215, 1218, 1216 (3d Cir.1993) (citations omitted).
[46] See T.M. ex rel. A.M. v. Cornwall Cent. Sch. Dist., 752 F.3d 145, 163 (2d Cir. 2014) (“In other words, a disabled child should not be forced into a special classroom if he or she can be appropriately educated in a mainstream classroom”); Letter to VanWart, 20 IDELR 1217 (OSEP 1993) (administrative convenience is not a legitimate consideration in determining LRE).
[47] See 34 CFR 300.513 (a)(2).
[48] See 603 CMR 28.05(2)(b) (“if the Team finds the evaluation information insufficient to develop an IEP, the Team, with parental consent, may agree to an extended evaluation period”).
[49] Emphasis added.
[50] See 34 CFR 300.513 (a)(2).
[51] Student’s IQ did not correlate with those of the other peers in the AIM program.
[52] I note that the N1 generated from the Team meeting only indicates the Team disagreed with Dr. Sadowski’s placement recommendation, not that it disagreed with her language-based intervention recommendations.
[53] See J.P. ex rel. Popson v. W. Clark Cmty. Schs., 230 F. Supp. 2d 910, 936 (S.D. Ind. 2002) (An educational approach proposed by a school district for teaching a disabled child meets the legal standard for soundness if: (a) the school district can articulate its rationale or explain the specific benefits of using that approach in light of the particular disabilities of the child; (b) the teachers and special educators involved in implementing that approach have the necessary experience and expertise to do so successfully; and (c) there are qualified experts in the educational community who consider the school district's approach to be at least adequate under the circumstances).
[54] See O'Toole, 144 F.3d at 702 (“we do not hold that a school district can ignore the fact that an IEP is clearly failing, nor can it continue to implement year after year, without change, an IEP which fails to confer educational benefits on the student”).
[55] See Falmouth Sch. Dep't v. Doe on behalf of Doe, 44 F.4th 23, 42 (1st Cir. 2022) (affirming the district court’s conclusion that the IEP denied FAPE where, despite evidence of the student’s orthographic deficits and failure to meet prior reading goals, the district merely proposed incremental increases in specialized instruction, failed to further evaluate the student’s reading needs, did not reconsider the type of reading intervention being provided, and effectively abandoned an unmet reading goal thereby rendering the proposed program not reasonably calculated to enable more than minimal progress in basic reading and writing skills).
[56] Ms. Omasta provided only 20 minutes of daily Wilson instruction, despite the accepted IEP requiring 50 minutes and the Wilson methodology generally recommending substantially more. Although she testified that Student became fatigued after 20 minutes, the Team should have convened to address that issue and determine how to provide the required instruction. Instead, Ms. Omasta unilaterally reduced the service without a Team decision or IEP amendment.
[57] See C.B. by & through K.B. v. Henry Cnty. Sch. Dist., 167 F.4th 1134, 1142 (11th Cir. 2026) (“Because Henry County was considering a placement choice between two special education classes, not between a regular class and a special education class, the parents cannot show that Henry County did not comply with the IDEA's least-restrictive-environment directive. … The parents point to no requirement to consider mainstreaming when the placement decision is between two special education classes. Indeed, to do so would expand the concept of ‘mainstreaming’ beyond the statutory text and our precedent”).
[58] Doucette, 936 F.3d at 32.