COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Student and Wareham Public Schools BSEA# 2610481
DECISION
This decision is issued pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (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.
On March 18, 2026, Parents filed a Hearing Request against Wareham Public Schools (District or WPS). On March 19, 2026, the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) issued a Notice of Hearing, scheduling the Hearing for April 22, 2026. The Hearing was twice postponed at the joint request of the Parties, for good cause, to allow for additional time for resolution, and was held as finally rescheduled on May 29, 2026.
The official record of the Hearing consists of documents submitted by Parents and marked as Exhibit P-1 (only the 2025 evaluation), Exhibit P-6 (only the IEPs), Exhibit P-7, Exhibit P-10[1], Exhibit P-12, and Exhibit P-15[2]; documents submitted by the District marked as Exhibit S-2, Exhibit S-4, Exhibit S-6, Exhibit S-11, Exhibit S-19, Exhibit S-21, Exhibit S-24 and Exhibit S-27[3]; and approximately 3 hours of stenographically recorded oral testimony by 4 witnesses resulting in a 1-volume transcript. At the conclusion of the testimony, the Parties joint written request for an extension to file written closing arguments was granted for good cause, and on June 29, 2026, upon timely receipt of said written closing arguments, the record closed.
Those present for all or part of the proceedings were:
Mother
Father
Andrew Henneous Attorney for WPS
Melissa Fay Director of Student Services, WPS
Katherine Frain Assistant Principal, Wareham Middle School
Mikayla Smith Teacher, WPS
Erin Baker Teacher, WPS
Mary Shaw Teacher, WPS
Iman Aoun BSEA Legal Intern
Melissa Lupo Stenographer, Advanced Court Reporting
Marguerite M. Mitchell Hearing Officer
ISSUES IN DISPUTE:
1. Whether Student requires services or supports in his science and social studies classes that are beyond those provided for in his current Individualized Educational Program (IEP); and
2. If so, whether Student is entitled to compensatory services?
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES:
Parents’ Position
Parents submit that in order to receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE) Student requires special education (B-Grid) services from a certified special education teacher within his general education science and social studies classes to support his written language and reading comprehension deficits. Student’s evaluation results, progress monitoring test scores, and progress reports support his need for direct services to assist him with the reading and written task requirements in these general education classes. If Student were provided with the proper supports, he would be able to complete all work required for social studies and science in the general education classroom without the need to do so in his academic support block. Parents contend based upon an email they received from the Director of Special Education, that Student is not being provided with these services because the District does not have a co-taught classroom model in these subjects. They assert that this is in contravention of the IDEA as it fails to account for Student’s individual educational needs. According to Parents, the B-Grid services Student requires are distinct from co-taught classes, as co-taught classes involve either one dually certified or two teachers (a certified general education and special education teacher) teaching subject matter content to all students, while Student requires direct support from a special education teacher in both science and social studies regardless of whether the class is co-taught.
District’s Position
The District disputes that Student requires the direct assistance of a special education teacher in science and social studies general education classes in order to receive a FAPE. Rather, the District contends that the last agreed-upon IEP provides Student with a FAPE because it is custom-tailored to his learning needs and reasonably calculated to confer meaningful educational benefit, ensuring access to the general education curriculum and participation in the general education setting, such that he can make effective progress. Notwithstanding, the District has offered additional services to support Student’s written language and reading comprehension needs, and to assist with improving Student’s access and participation in general education science and social studies classes that have yet to be accepted by Parents.
FACTUAL FINDINGS[4]:
1. Student is currently 11 years old[5] and just completed fifth grade at Wareham Middle School (WMS). He qualifies for special education based upon a Specific Learning Disability in reading and written expression. Student has described himself as reliable and good with mechanical things and his hands. He enjoys music and plays the trumpet in the school band. He also enjoys doing outdoor activities, playing sports and playing with his father when not at school. (P-2; S-27)
2. To address a reading and written language goal, Student’s IEP dated June 2, 2025 to December 16, 2025 (June 2025 IEP), provided for 5 x 57 minutes weekly of inclusion (B-Grid) support from a special education teacher in English Language Arts (ELA) and 2 x 57 minutes weekly of ELA services from a special education teacher in the C-Grid. Classroom accommodations included visual helpers (visual schedule, number lines, sentence starters, graphic organizers); verbal and nonverbal cues for redirection to task; read aloud of text as needed; tasks broken down; redirection during tests to maintain attention; repeat and clarification of directions; wait time; gaining attention prior to giving directions/questions; speech to text for written assignments as needed; additional time to complete work as needed; frequent breaks; clear/consistent routines; multisensory approach in a language rich environment; and preferential seating. The June 2025 IEP also provided for specialized transportation, extended school year (ESY) services consisting of one hour per week of virtual reading tutoring for five weeks, and placement in a full-inclusion classroom. Parents fully accepted this IEP and placement on June 6, 2025. (P-2; S-27; Mother, 28-29, 46; Frain, 71-72, 85-86).
3. According to the Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance (PLAAFP) for Academics in the June 2025 IEP, Student had strength in math, science and social studies but continued to need assistance in ELA, particularly following written instructions. (S-27; Frain, 70-71).
4. According to the District’s June 10, 2025, Psychological Report[6], (which noted a family history of learning disabilities) Student’s overall WISC-V scores reflected average intelligence (full scale intelligence quotient 92), with strengths on the Verbal Comprehension (SS 108) and Visual Spatial (SS 102) Indices and a relative weakness on the Fluid Reasoning (SS 85) Index. In reading, on the TOWRE-2, Student scored below average overall (SS 83) and on both subtests of Sight Word Efficiency (SS 84) and Phonemic Decoding Efficiency (SS 83). Student’s Oral Reading Index (SS 84) and Comprehension (Scaled Score 6) on the GORT-V were also below average, while his Rate (Scaled Score 8), Accuracy (Scaled Score 9) and Fluency (Scaled Score 8) were all average. Regarding written expression, Student’s Spontaneous Writing Quotient was in the very poor range (SS 62) on the TOWL-IV, as were his scores on the subtests for Vocabulary, Spelling and Contextual Conventions (Scaled Scores of 2, 3, and 3, respectively). Student’s Punctuation and Story Composition subtests (Scaled Scores of 4 each) were in the Poor range on the TOWL-IV.
When reading aloud, Student continued to read “b” for “d” and ignored punctuation. In writing, Student struggled to write a short essay even with a topic and stimulus card, earning a zero on the Vocabulary, Spelling and Punctuation sub-tests. Despite agreeing to read his essay aloud “to aid in scoring”, he was unable to fully do so and improvised by adding sentences that were not written. The Psychological Report concluded that Student’s diagnosis of deficits in reading comprehension and written expression remains appropriate, and he continues to require specialized support in these areas to address his weaknesses. (P-1; S-27; Mother, 31-33)
5. The Psychological Report recommended that Student continue to receive specialized instruction in reading comprehension and written expression; receive assistance with adhering to punctuation when reading (and that a goal related to pausing for punctuation be considered); be taught techniques to assist in replacing “b” for “d” when reading; and that he read daily from books of interest. Suggested accommodations included use of technology (speech-to-text) to assist with writing; provision of class notes or fill-in notes; pairing verbal instruction with visual models; pre-teaching vocabulary; summarizing and chunking information; preferential seating; access to guides, reference lists, and graphic organizers; repetition; and extended time for testing. (P-1; S-27; Mother, 34, 37-38).
6. On September 9, 2025, Mother emailed Katherine Frain[7], the Assistant Principal of Special Education for WMS, and Melissa Fay, the District’s Director of Special Education, with a Statement of Parent Concerns based upon the Psychological Report. Parents proposed a trial plan involving Student receiving Wilson reading services at least 3 times per week, and at least 20 minutes a day of SRA Reading Laboratory program (SRA) for a period of 4-6 weeks, during which he would be progress monitored for decoding and fluency in Wilson, and comprehension and awareness of punctuation in SRA. Additionally, Parents requested that Student’s writing progress be monitored during this time for spelling, punctuation and sentence structure as well as the ability to read his own writing aloud and further asked that Student’s independence and reliance on prompting to complete these tasks be tracked. In addition to daily reading ESY tutoring, Parents also requested that Student participate in the rest of the ESY academic program. Parents objected to any decrease in Wilson instruction, noting that Student had previously received Wilson reading services daily. They also emphasized their desire to work collaboratively and in partnership with the Team to support Student’s reading and writing needs with the overall goal that he receives the interventions needed to allow him to fully participate with his peers in the general education setting. (S-27).
7. The Team reconvened on September 11, 2025 to review the Psychological Report and proposed an IEP dated September 11, 2025 to December 16, 2025 (September 2025 IEP or Stay Put IEP) which revised the June 2025 IEP by adding consultation from a special education teacher 10 minutes weekly to the A-Grid, increasing the ESY reading tutoring from one hour weekly to four hours weekly, and adding two hours of daily ESY Academic Support services for a five-week ESY program. Further, the Additional Information section was revised to indicate that Student will receive “3 days of reading tutoring virtually after school” and “have a systematic reading approach to include reading comprehension and writing 5 times a week for at least 20 minutes for the remainder of 5th grade”. Parents’ Statement of Concerns was also added verbatim. No changes were made to Student’s goals, accommodations, B-Grid or C-Grid services, and Student continued to receive specialized transportation to a full inclusion placement at Wareham Middle School. Parents accepted this IEP and placement on September 15, 2025, commenting that they understood the information in Additional Information was “legally binding”. The Parties agree that this is Student’s “stay put” IEP. (P-6; S-27; Mother, 29, 46-48; Frain 73-75, 80, 89-90).
8. The September 11, 2025 Team also recommended that Student receive an Occupational Therapy Evaluation (OT Evaluation) to assess his handwriting needs, which evaluation occurred in October 2025[8]. The evaluator noted that Student’s grades were all As except for Math, which was a B+ and ELA which was a B- in the first term of the year. Student was observed during his ELA class, where he was on task for 67% of the time but was still able to follow instructions and complete a sentence writing task. Student’s handwriting legibility was challenged by poor spelling and inconsistent spacing, including within the lines and between words. Student scored in the average range for the BOT-2 test of fine motor precision. On the DTVP-3, Student scored in the above average range for eye-hand coordination; in the average range for copying, figure-ground and form constancy; and in the below-average range for visual closure. (S-27; Frain, 74).
9. On October 16, 2025, Mother emailed Ms. Frain and Ms. Fay with a new Parental Statement of Concerns for Student’s IEP, based upon the OT Evaluation. Parents noted concerns with Student’s handwriting, visual processing and legibility due to poor spelling and spacing, as well as with his below-average visual closure skills. Additionally, they expressed concern that Student misses out on recess to receive his Grid C services[9]. (S-27).
10. Student’s November 3, 2025 Progress Report indicates that Student was making progress on both his reading and writing goal, having attained some benchmarks but still working on others[10]. (S-27).
11. On November 4, 2025, the Team reconvened to review the results of the OT Evaluation and proposed a new IEP dated November 4, 2025 to November 3, 2026, (November 2025 IEP) which revised the September 2025 IEP by adding consultation from an occupational therapist (OT) 15 minutes weekly to the A-Grid with respect to a revised writing goal and, at the recommendation of the Occupational Therapist, the new “Classroom Modifications” consisting of the provision of class notes, as needed; extra time for task completion, assessments and assignments, as needed; opportunities to retest on poor assessments; speech to text for longer passages over one paragraph; and computer supports (word prediction, highlighting text, summarizing texts, removing distracting ads). Additionally, the November 2025 IEP reworded the accommodation of “tasks broken down into smaller parts” as “chunking of tasks”; added accommodations to support Student’s writing needs, including editing checklists, graph paper and frequent check-ins for understanding, and revised the reading goal and benchmarks[11]. No other changes were made, and Student continued to receive specialized transportation to a full-inclusion placement at Wareham Middle School. Parents’ Statement of Concerns was not updated to include the concerns expressed in Mother’s October 16, 2025, email, however. (P-6; S-27; Mother 29, 47; Frain, 75-76).
12. With respect to the revisions to Student’s writing annual goal and benchmarks in the November 2025 IEP, Ms. Frain explained that they reflect the Team discussion of moving away from focusing on Student working on capitalization, punctuation and spelling to developing more complexity in his written work. This change was attributable to the Team’s decision to provide Student with writing accommodations in the general education setting through assistive technology tools on his Chromebook and editing checklists. (Frain, 95-96).
13. Parents rejected the November 2025 IEP and refused the placement on November 6, 2025, commenting that the IEP does not provide Student with a FAPE, or his IDEA rights; that Student requires an “evidence[d]-based reading program”; and noting that they were informed during the prior school year that the middle school schedule “doesn’t fit his services” (P-6; S-27).
14. Also on November 6, 2025, Mother emailed the Superintendent to request a meeting to discuss the additional services and supports she felt Student required in middle school but was not receiving. She informed the Superintendent that her request for additional services had been denied due to WMS’s structure and programming, which she contended was improper. She also provided a procedural history of Student’s IEP, special education services and evaluations surrounding his transition from elementary school to middle school. (P-10; Mother, 28).
15. On November 14, 2025, Parents and Ms. Fay “had a discussion” and subsequent email communications about the rejection of the November 2025 IEP[12], and additional OT services. Ms. Fay informed Mother that the Occupational Therapist had recommended supporting Student using the Zaner Bloser Handwriting Program and provided a link to that program. In response, Mother advised,
I wanted to share my proposal for how [Student’s] writing and handwriting instruction could be structure[d] to best meet his needs[.] OT handwriting 2x per week 30 minutes per session using [Z]aner-[B]loser[.] Focus [is to be on] letter formation spacing automaticity and legibility (sic) Grid c with [M]s. [S]haw or another special education teacher working at [Student’s] instructional level 2nd grade to build fluency sentence construction and composition skills[.] This structure allows him to build foundational handwriting skills in a pull out sessions (sic) while also practicing real writing task[s] at a level he can succeed in during grid c[.] I’d love to collaborate on this plan to ensure it aligns with [Student’s] goals and helps him make steady progress. Until he masters this every grade is going to be a struggle. Im (sic) also going to ask [that] he don’t (sic) miss band for his OT services he already has to miss recess[.] Look forward to hearing back from you[.] (S-19; S-27).
16. By email on November 17, 2025, Ms. Fay informed Mother that the District was making Parents’ requested changes to the IEP and anticipated sending it out that week. Specifically, the following changes were being made: “Wilson Certified teacher (Rachel Kuklinski) hours after school will remain the same”; “2 x 57 pull out with Special Ed teacher (Shaw) will remain, adding the specifications that [Parents] requested to the IEP under additional information”; and “[a]ddition of 2X30 OT for Evidence-Based Writing Program (Zaner-Bloser), and addition of an OT goal focusing on letter formation[,] spacing, automaticity, and legibility”. (S-27).
17. On November 20, 2025, the District sent Parents an amended November 2025 IEP, (November 2025 Amended IEP) that proposed adding OT services 2 x 30 minutes weekly in the C-Grid to address a newly proposed third goal entitled “Written Output” (focusing on printing a five sentence paragraph with proper spacing, letter alignment and legibility), and changing the name of the C-Grid “English Language Arts” services to “Academic Support”[13]. The Additional Information section was also revised to provide that “academic support will be used by the special education teacher to support fluency building, sentence structure and composition skills as it relates to the curriculum” and that Student would use the “Zaner-Bloser writing program for the life of the IEP”. No other changes were made to the Service Delivery Grid, Accommodations, Classroom Modifications, or ESY services from the November 2025 IEP, and Student continued to receive specialized transportation to a full inclusion placement at Wareham Middle School. Mother testified that she did not accept this IEP, because, despite reaching an agreement with the District regarding OT services, she still objected to the lack of B-Grid supports in science and social studies which she understood were not included because this model did not exist in the middle school. (P-6; Mother 30, 47-48, 52-54).
18. On November 21, 2025, Ms. Frain emailed Mother, at Ms. Fay’s request, to confirm that Student would not be removed from band for his proposed C-Grid OT services and that his Academic Support would continue as scheduled. (S-24).
19. On December 2, 2025, Parent emailed Mikayla Smith, Student’s Grade 5 ELA and Social Studies teacher[14], to ask about a “First Thanksgiving Meal” assignment in Social Studies that Student had brought home, which indicated he had received a 0%. She asked what accommodations were provided to Student in completing the assignment. Ms. Smith replied that the assignment was provided on a day she was absent from school and advised that Student was provided with the accommodations of wait time, preferential seating, directions and the text being read aloud (the text was actually read aloud to all students), additional time to complete the assignment and frequent breaks (this was offered but not used). Student was graded on content knowledge and comprehension, not his written expression. Ms. Smith offered to have Student bring the assignment back to school to complete it again. (P-15).
20. On December 5, 2025, Student’s special education teacher, Mary Shaw who provides Student with B-Grid services in ELA and his C-Grid services, emailed Mother to inform her that Student was up to date with his work in all subjects except science. She advised that Student had a pending science assignment that he could work on with her during the C-Grid service time (referred to as Viking Block). (P-12; Mother, 38-39).
21. Also on December 5, 2025, Ms. Smith emailed Mother to confirm that Student had worked with Ms. Shaw during Viking Block the day before and had redone the First Thanksgiving Meal assignment. His grade was now a 90% and the grading database had been updated to reflect that. Mother replied to thank Ms. Smith. (P-15).
22. Additionally, on December 5, 2025, Ms. Fay emailed Mother to coordinate the requested meeting with the Superintendent for December 8, 2025. Ultimately, Mother and the Superintendent had a telephone conference on December 8th that included both Ms. Frain and Ms. Fay. (S-27).
23. On December 11, 2025, Ms. Frain emailed Parents to advise that she was updating the proposed IEP for Student based on the December 8, 2025 meeting by removing the information contained in the Communication PLAAFP, making the accommodations more specific (i.e., eliminating all references to “as needed”), and adding the following accommodation: “scaffolded and review (sic) social studies and science that support the concerns about [Student’s] science and social studies work”. Ms. Frain also noted she had reviewed this with his teachers. Mother replied to reiterate the request she had made at the December 8, 2025 meeting for the IEP to be amended to provide push-in special education support with scaffolding in Grid B for all core subjects (english, math, science and social studies). Ms. Frain replied to clarify that the amended IEP would include B-Grid services in math and ELA, but she deferred to Ms. Fay regarding direct inclusion services in science and social studies. (P-7; S-21; Mother, 24-25).
24. Ms. Fay, in turn, replied to advise that the District,
was amenable to offer support to [Student] in social studies and science, but co-taught classes do not exist in these areas. We added extra support for those classes, but they would be during his pull-out special education services, not during the actual classes of social studies and science. We would ask that we trial these new interventions for a period of eight weeks and then meet to see if the interventions are working in February of 2026. If you’re not agreeable to that, then I would suggest that we move to a BSEA mediation. I’m happy to discuss at any point. Thanks. Melissa. (P-7; Mother, 25-26).
25. Subsequent to these emails, on December 11, 2025, the District sent Parents a further amended November 2025 IEP, (December 2025 Amended IEP) [15]. This IEP proposed to add Inclusion math with a Special Education Teacher 5 x 57 minutes weekly to the B-Grid to work on the reading and written language goals (not the Written Output goal)[16], and revised both the A-Grid OT Consultation and the C-Grid OT direct services to reflect that they were addressing both writing goals. Changes were made to the wording of certain accommodations and modifications (that according to the N1 Form accompanying the December 2025 Amended IEP were done at Mother’s request), specifically speech to text for writing was provided for all “longer writing assignments” not “as needed”, “frequent breaks as needed” was revised to be “purposeful movement breaks” and “as needed” was removed for the Classroom Modifications of extra time to complete tasks, assessments and assignments. A Classroom Modification consisting of “[s]cience and [s]ocial [s]tudies materials will be scaffolded and reviewed for [Student’s] understanding” was added[17]. Parents fully rejected this IEP on January 14, 2026, with the following comment: “Request Grid B Scaffolding in all academic classes. Melissa Fay wrote Dec 11, 2025 (sic) [that] the district was amenable to offering support to [Student in his] [s]ocial [s]tudies, [and [s]cience [classes] but co-taught classes do not exist in those areas”. (P-6; S-11; S-27; Mother, 30, 48, 56; Frain, 76-79).
26. Mother understood that the scaffolding in science and social studies proposed as Classroom Modifications in the December 2025 Amended IEP to consist of providing Student with supports based on his performance and removing them as his performance improves. (Such supports would include visual supports, assistance with written expression) or providing partial notes for Student to fill in. Mother was unsure if a certified general education teacher could provide scaffolding supports, or if it had to be done only by a certified special education certified teacher or a dually certified teacher. (P-6; Mother, 57-59).
27. Ms. Frain explained that the proposed Classroom Modification scaffolding involves the regular education science and social studies teachers providing Student with supports to assist in him accessing the curriculum, such as offering sentence starters, word frames, extra teaching, and previewing material. She noted that not only were these supports offered to address Parents’ concerns in these subjects but that the District also believed in their efficacy for Student. (Frain, 78-79)
28. According to Mother, the proposed scaffolding supports are not sufficient to meet Student’s needs, as he requires direct services from a licensed special education teacher in science and social studies, and cannot make meaningful progress when he is only taught by a general education teacher in these subjects. (Mother, 59).
29. Student’s ELA Support C-Grid services provide him with an opportunity to work directly with a special educator and no more than eight other students at a time (often fewer) to preview, edit and review written classwork in all subjects, preview assignments and vocabulary, and practice spelling words in accordance with his reading and written language goals (albeit not his written output goal). Student works with Ms. Shaw for these services, although there are three special education teachers providing this support to the fifth grade. (Frain, 97-98).
30. Parents want Student to participate in band, even if that means he will miss opportunities for additional academic support. According to Mother, the IDEA gives Student the right to participate in non-academic activities, such as band, with his peers. Band occurs three days a week in the middle school, and as a result his C-Grid academic services were scheduled twice a week, although they could have been provided to Student daily. In Ms. Frain’s opinion, Student is making progress at the twice-a-week frequency of C-Grid services, although she recognized that if Student had additional time to receive these services, he would likely make additional gains. (S-27; Mother, 44-45; Frain, 80-81, 101).
31. Mother is not a certified special or regular education teacher, or a certified school psychologist. She has however fully reviewed Student’s evaluations and is his advocate and Parent. According to Mother, Student’s evaluations indicate that he is unable to understand fifth- grade reading and writing materials independently. (Mother, 42-43, 49-50).
32. Erin Baker is Student’s Grade 5 math and science teacher[18]. There are 16 students in Student’s science class, including Student. Student received an 83 in science for Term 1, a 93 for Term 2 and an 81 for Term 3. At the time of the hearing, Student had been primarily holding a B in Term 4, although, as a result of a few missing assignments due to a field trip-related absence, he was currently at a C+. Ms. Baker expected that grade to improve when the assignments were turned in. Ms. Baker grades all her students based upon the progress and understanding they have with respect to the grade 5 Massachusetts state standards for science, with respect to homework, participation, class work and assessment. Ms. Baker also assesses students’ progress by observing their involvement in the numerous hands-on activities and group projects, as well as their participation in class discussions and interactive computer assignments. She provides all students with full credit when missing assignments are turned in. According to Ms. Baker, Student loves science, is very interested and involved, and seems to understand most of the concepts being covered. Other than the existing accommodations Student receives in accordance with the September 2025 IEP, Ms. Baker does not think he requires additional supports in science class to make academic progress or understand the curriculum. She noted that while she offers Student all his accommodations, he does not always access them. For instance, sometimes Student declines to have written material read aloud to him, although Ms. Baker will circle back and check in again if this is refused initially. Ms. Baker has observed Student to read and comprehend the Grade 5 science material, although she noted that he struggles with written output, and it is often hard to read his writing. To address this, Student is given opportunities to type responses on a Google Document, redo assignments, or correct written material that cannot be read, just as all other students are able to do. While Ms. Baker believes Student would benefit from OT handwriting support, she opined that Student is making progress without OT support. In support of this opinion she indicated that his handwriting challenges, particularly on an open response, can result in a lower score, however, once he receives feedback and makes corrections on the assignment, the issues are resolved[19]. (Baker, 107-19).
33. In social studies, Student received an 89 for Term 1, a 91 for Term 2 and a 93 for Term 3 and, at the time of the hearing, a B for Term 4, according to Ms. Smith. Ms. Smith uses role-playing and a frequent hands-on simulations in her social studies class, and she assesses students’ abilities to access the curriculum based on their involvement with these activities, class discussions and whole and small group discussions. Student is one of her most participatory students, and she can always call on him to answer questions. He also asks “very good” questions, that reflect his understanding of the curriculum. Student is offered all the accommodations from the September 2025 IEP, but he does not always access them. When he initially refuses, Ms. Smith will circle back to offer again. Ms. Smith also opined that Student can independently read fifth-grade material. However, he struggles with both handwriting and typing, particularly with spelling words properly across both modes of written output. He is offered a speech-to-text accommodation, as a good teaching practice, but often refuses to use it. Ms. Smith allows Student to make up assignments (which she noted to be in accordance with his accommodations but also a good teaching practice), but he rarely needs to do so. (Smith, 123-32).
34. For the first three terms of the 2025-2026 school year, Student received a B+, C and C in math; a B, A and B- in science; a B-, C+ and C in ELA; and a B+, A- and A in social studies. He also had an A in his Term 2 STEAM elective. When questioned as to how these grades can be earned given Student’s poor evaluation scores, Ms. Frain explained that she believes students can outperform evaluations, noting that during educational evaluations there are no accommodations provided, whereas tests during the school year are administered by familiar teachers and reflect a student’s ability to access the curriculum with the accommodations, modifications, supports and services provided for in an IEP. (S-4; S-6; Mother, 60; Frain, 83-84; Baker, 109)
35. On January 20, 2026, Parent filed a state Complaint with the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s (DESE) Program Resolution System (PRS) Office, relating to two issues, including one, here relevant,
… whether Student’s rejected IEP was reasonably calculated to meet [Student’s] needs in [s]ocial [s]tudies and [s]cience. Specifically, whether [Student] required the requested push-in services, and whether the District’s decision to deny such services was predetermined or influenced by limited structure or availability.” (Complaint Number 15200).
PRS issued a Letter of Closure on March 17, 2026, finding the District in compliance on both issues[20]. Specifically, relying on its review of the December 2025 Amended IEP, documentation of the District’s responses to parental concerns and revisions to proposed IEPs, Student’s Term 1 and Term 2 Report Cards, and his November 2025 and January 2026 Progress Reports, PRS found that Student did not require the requested push-in services, and that the District’s decision was not improperly predetermined or based upon limited program structure or availability. (S-2).
36. Student’s January 26, 2026 Progress Report indicates that he improved in his ability to demonstrate understanding of the main idea, setting and characters, as well as in decoding multisyllabic words, but continued struggle with encoding those words, having only 15% accuracy in spelling them in his classwork. He could successfully decode words with digraphs but had 40% accuracy encoding these words. With regard to his written language goal, Student made mixed progress. He wrote a 4-paragraph essay using writing tools, again achieving a 4 out of 4 for topic development, but only a 2 out of 3 for writing conventions. He made progress in demonstrating comprehension of grade-level reading passages with reminders and support and showed consistent use of ending punctuation but continued to have challenges using capital letters to start sentences. (S-27).
37. Student’s NWEA Benchmark for the spring of 2025 (grade 4) was a 191 in reading and a 190 in math, both of which reflected low growth and low achievement. His fall 2025 NWEA scores were 193 in reading (low growth and low achievement), and 209 in math (high growth and high achievement). Ms. Frain explained that the scores between spring 2025 and fall 2025 reflect that Student did not experience substantial regression over the summer in reading and actually had growth over the summer in math. Student’s winter 2026 Benchmark showed a 19-point gain in reading, scoring 212 (meeting his goal of 197), which was high growth and high achievement. Ms. Frain considered this to be “incredibly high” improvement. Student was also assessed in language usage on the NWEA in the winter 2026 and scored a 196, which did not meet his goal of 200 and was only one point higher than his benchmark score of 195 in the spring of 2025. This reflected low growth and low achievement. When taking NWEA tests, students receive all accommodations they have the right to receive on district assessments, and because the accommodations do not vary from assessment to assessment, their provision does not affect growth results. (P-2; S-27; Frain, 83, 91-94).
38. Student’s spring 2025 MCAS scores was a 485 in ELA (only 4 points below the school score of 489) and a 476 in math, both of which were partially meeting expectations. His growth percentile in ELA was 87, and in math was 40. (Student had scored a 469 in ELA and a 477 in math on the spring 2024 MCAS (3rd grade). The Grade 3 ELA score was not meeting expectations while the math score was partially meeting expectations). Ms. Frain explained Student’s ELA MCAS scores between Grades 3 and 4 reflected tremendous improvement. (S-27; Frain, 90).
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
1. Free Appropriate Public Education
The right to a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for all students with a disability is guaranteed by both federal and state law[21]. A FAPE is “special education and related services [consisting of] both ‘instruction’ tailored to meet a child’s ‘unique needs’ and sufficient ‘support services’ to permit the child to benefit from that instruction”[22]. To constitute a FAPE, and for a school District to meet its IDEA obligations with respect to an IEP, a student’s education program must be “reasonably calculated” to deliver “educational benefits” and “to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances”[23]. The examination of effective progress shall be made in the context of the educational potential of the student[24]. To meet the “unique needs” of students who are fully integrated in the regular classroom, the IEP must typically, “…provid[e] a level of instruction reasonably calculated to permit advancement through the general curriculum”[25].
An IEP must be “custom tailored” and “individually designed” to be “reasonably calculated to confer a meaningful educational benefit” to a student[26]. “… [A]n IEP is designed as a package. It must target ‘all’ of a child’s special needs, whether they be academic, physical, emotional or social”[27]. An IEP is the “comprehensive plan” by which “special education and related services are ‘tailored to the unique needs’ of a particular child.”[28]. Evaluating an IEP requires viewing it as “… a snapshot, not a retrospective. In striving for ‘appropriateness,’ an IEP must take into account what was and was not objectively reasonable when the snapshot was taken, that is, at the time the IEP was promulgated”[29]. Although an IEP’s educational services 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”[30], student progress must be “effective,” and a student must show “‘demonstrable improvement’ in the various ‘educational and personal skills identified as special needs’” to receive a FAPE[31].
2. Placement in the Least Restrictive Environment
The services that comprise a FAPE must be provided in the “least restrictive environment” (LRE)[32]. In selecting the LRE, the IEP team must therefore consider the “special education and related services and supplementary aids and services, based on peer-reviewed research to the extent practicable, to be provided to the child” as well as “… the program modifications or supports for school personnel that will be provided to enable the child … [t]o be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum … , and to participate in extracurricular and other nonacademic activities” in conjunction with children both with and without disabilities[33]. Under the IDEA the determination of such supplementary aids and services, and such program modifications, among other items, should be made by the Team with the input of regular education teachers who are members of IEP Team[34].
Placement decisions must be based on the services, supports, and accommodations contained within a student’s IEP and must be individualized for each child[35]. According to the Federal Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) in making placement determinations, “the overriding rule in placement is that each student's placement must be individually-determined based on the individual student's abilities and needs”[36]. “[I]t is the program of specialized instruction and related services contained in the student's IEP that forms the basis for the placement decision”[37]. Districts cannot, for instance, employ a system of placing children based on categorical groupings and available programs, rather than individualized needs[38].
3. Burden of Persuasion
In a special education due process proceeding, the burden of proof is on the moving party[39]. If the evidence is closely balanced, the moving party will not prevail[40].
DISCUSSION[41]:
This matter involves the discrete issue of whether, in order to receive a FAPE, Student requires services and supports (specifically B-Grid services from a certified special educator) in his science and social studies classes in addition to those currently provided for in his IEP. I note at the outset that Parents have been active and engaged advocates for Student’s education. Their care and concern for his educational progress are evident and are at the forefront of all their outreach and communication with the District. It is clear from the record that the Parties have at all times maintained professional, courteous and collaborative contact, despite their underlying disputes. Parents’ concerns that the District is improperly refusing to provide Student with additional supports in his science and social studies classes are understandable, particularly given Ms. Fay’s December 11, 2025 email that advised Parents that the District was “amenable to offer support to [Student] in social studies and science, but co-taught classes do not exist in these areas”. This email was not refuted by the District, and although Ms. Fay was present at the hearing, and originally listed as a District witness, Mother was the only witness to testify about this communication. It appears from the email as written that, at least at that time, the District’s reason for not providing Student with B-Grid services in science and social studies was inappropriate and contrary to the IDEA’s LRE and placement requirements[42]. Thus, were I to find that Student’s individual educational needs require provision of B-Grid services in science and social studies, the District would be responsible to provide them, regardless of whether “co-taught classes exist in these areas”. Therefore, I begin my analysis by examining what supports Student requires to receive a FAPE.
The documents in the record relating to Student’s educational needs and progress consist of two evaluations; report card grades; progress reports for November 2025 and January 2026; MCAS records for grades 3 (2024) and 4 (2025); NWEA Benchmark records for spring 2025, fall 2025 and winter 2026; email communications between Mother and Ms. Smith with regard to the First Thanksgiving Meal assignment; and an email exchange between Mother and Ms. Shaw regarding Student’s progress in Viking Block. Parents presented only Mother as their witness, and she readily acknowledged that her expertise is as Student’s parent and life-long advocate. While Mother clearly knows Student “best”, she cannot, on her own, provide the evidence necessary to sustain her burden in this matter; nor could she or did she try to dispute the credible, reliable and convincing testimony regarding Student’s progress in fifth grade generally (and in science and social studies, specifically) provided by Ms. Frain, Ms. Baker and Ms. Smith, all of whom are certified experienced educators.
As such, upon a careful review of this testimony and documentary evidence I conclude that Parents have not met their burden to prove that Student requires their requested B-Grid services in his science and social studies classes. However, he does require services and supports beyond what is provided in his Stay Put IEP to address certain aspects of writing, to facilitate effective progress in both science and social studies. My reasoning follows.
Both Ms. Baker and Ms. Smith convincingly testified to Student’s successes in science and social studies, as demonstrated by his grades, his active participation in these classes and his ability to read and comprehend fifth-grade-level material with the accommodations, modifications and supports provide to him under his Stay Put IEP[43]. Nevertheless, they also both consistently acknowledged Student’s challenges with his written output and the difficulties he demonstrates in both classes with handwriting, spelling, and punctuation, even when typing, which often makes his work illegible. Ms. Baker acknowledged that Student’s handwriting challenges can impact the initial grade he receives on assignments. Although both teachers accommodate these challenges by providing additional time to complete work or opportunities to make up illegible work, they do not provide any direct services to address this need.
The Writing Goal in the Stay Put IEP requires writing a multi-paragraph response that demonstrates, among other elements, correct spelling. One of the objectives for this Goal directly relates to the use of proper writing conventions. The direct services tied to this Goal are currently provided to Student in ELA, daily, and twice a week during Viking Block. However, according to the November and January 2026 Progress Report, Student, although making progress in other areas, was not making progress in written output and spelling (specifically, he continued to struggle with writing conventions in his written work, never scoring beyond a 2 out of 3; struggled to encode his spelling words; and continued to have challenges using capital letters to start sentences)[44]. This lack of progress indicates that additional services and supports directly targeting Student’s handwriting legibility, spelling and writing conventions are necessary for Student to receive a FAPE.
The Psychological Report and the OT Evaluation also support Student’s need for additional direct services to address his writing weaknesses. According to the Psychological Report, Student’s evaluative scores on the TOWL-IV were in the very poor and poor range, and the evaluator specifically noted that Student was unable to fully read back his written essay “to aid in scoring” when asked[45]. The OT Evaluation similarly noted challenges with handwriting legibility, poor spelling and inconsistent spacing, despite average performance in all other areas.
Although the District was aware of Student’s needs around his written output no later than the November 4, 2025 Team meeting, when the Team reviewed the OT Evaluation, it proposed modifications and accommodations (including assistive technology supports) and an OT A-Grid consultation, but not any other direct services to address this need. Further, the District failed to include a summary of the 2025 OT Evaluation, retaining instead outdated and inaccurate OT evaluative information that did not reflect Student’s current needs in this area. As Ms. Smith’s testimony reveals, even with assistive technology supports, Student continues to struggle with his spelling and written output, both while typing and when writing by hand, thus, this IEP, as proposed, was not sufficient. Direct OT services of 30 minutes twice weekly in the C-Grid, using an evidence-based writing program to address a new written expression goal, were in fact then proposed on November 20, 2025 in the November 2025 Amended IEP. The December 2025 Amended IEP (proposed on December 11, 2025) further refined these services by aligning both the OT C-Grid direct services and A-Grid consultation with Student's now two separate writing goals, incorporating the OT evaluation findings into the IEP, and adding scaffolded supports in science and social studies. Both Mother and Ms. Frain testified that these scaffolded supports will assist Student in addressing, among other areas, his writing, spelling and writing-convention needs (and, as Ms. Frain explained, could be provided by Student’s current regular education teachers). Taken together, the November and December 2025 Amended IEPs appropriately address Student's written expression needs through an additional targeted goal, direct OT services, consultation supporting both writing goals, and appropriate writing accommodations and modifications within the general education classroom. Thus, I find the December 2025 Amended IEP to be reasonably calculated to provide Student with a FAPE, including necessary written output services and the supports he requires in science and social studies to make effective progress in those classes.
I now turn to examining what, if any compensatory services are warranted. Compensatory education is an available remedy for violations of the IDEA that result in a denial of a FAPE[46]. An award of compensatory services while appropriate for “nonfeasance or misfeasance” by a school district, is discretionary, and equitable in nature[47]. Whether compensatory educational services are appropriate will, therefore, be based on a consideration of whether the conduct of both parties was reasonable[48], as well as the resulting impact of the district’s missteps on the student’s education.
In the instant matter, it is clear from the record that no new information otherwise available to the Team at the November 4, 2025 Team meeting, had arisen or was relied upon for making the changes proposed in the November 2025 Amended IEP or the December 2025 Amended IEP; rather the revisions were made based on continued communications with Parents as to their rejection of the November 4, 2025 IEP on November 6, 2025. Based on my analysis, supra, Student's denial of a FAPE with respect to scaffolded supports for science and social studies spanned approximately five weeks[49], a period that included federal holidays and school breaks. However, by the time of the Hearing, Parents had fully rejected both the November 2025 Amended IEP (proposing the necessary direct OT services to address a new written output goal, and assistive technology writing accommodations and supports) and the December 2025 Amended IEP (refining the OT services and including the proposed scaffolding modification)[50], based on their continued insistence that Student receive B-Grid services in science and social studies. While Parents claim all rejections were due to Ms. Fay’s objectionable December 11, 2025 email, Parents had not accepted any of the November renditions of Student’s IEP, either. Thus, I do not find Parents’ reasons for rejecting the November 2025 Amended IEP or the December 2025 Amended IEP to be reasonable, supported by the evidence, or to otherwise justify an award of compensatory services.
Nor does the District’s procedural violation trigger compensatory services. I have already noted the impropriety of Ms. Fay's statement in her December 11, 2025 email, however, I have also concluded that the December 2025 Amended IEP (proposed later that same day) was reasonably calculated to provide Student with a FAPE. Accordingly, I find that Student suffered no educational harm as a result of the email. Procedural violations that are technical or de minimis, not resulting in educational harm, are not actionable[51]. As such, Student compensatory services are not warranted for any reason in this matter. Parents are strongly encouraged to forthwith accept the December 2025 Amended IEP, and upon such acceptance, the District shall forthwith implement its provisions.
ORDER:
The December 2025 Amended IEP provides Student with a FAPE. Student does not require any additional services or supports in his science and social studies classes that are beyond those provided for in the December 2025 Amended IEP. No compensatory services are owed, as Parents have yet to accept the December 2025 Amended IEP and the District’s procedural violation did not result in educational harm.
Respectfully submitted,
By the Hearing Officer[52],
/s/ Marguerite M. Mitchell
Marguerite M. Mitchell
July 7, 2026
Footnotes
[1] Exhibit P-10 was admitted over the objection of the District.
[2] Parents originally submitted several additional exhibits for consideration but withdrew all but the noted exhibits prior to the Hearing. Exhibit P-10 was admitted over the objection of the District.
[3] The District originally submitted several additional exhibits for consideration but withdrew all but the noted exhibits prior to the Hearing.
[4] I have carefully considered all the evidence and testimony presented in this matter. I make findings of fact, however, only as necessary to resolve the issue(s) presented. Consequently, all evidence and all aspects of each witness’ testimony, although considered, is not included if it was not needed to resolve said issues.
[5] At all times relevant, including at the time of the Hearing, Student was 10 years old.
[6] Student was administered the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children; Fifth Edition (WISC-V), the Test of Word Reading Efficiency: Second Edition (TOWRE-2), the Gray Oral Reading Tests: Fifth Edition (GORT-V) and the Test of Written Language: Fourth Edition (TOWL-IV).
[7] Ms. Frain held the role of Assistant Principal for Special Education for the past four years. In this role, she chairs Team meetings and oversees the IEPs of eligible students. In her 17 years in public education Ms. Frain has also been employed as a regular education English teacher, an inclusion special education teacher, a substantially separate special education teacher for an autism program, and a behavior teacher all at the middle school level. She is certified in special education and English for all grade levels, as a special education administrator and in elementary education grades 1-6. (Frain, 67-69).
[8] Student was administered the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency 2 (BOT 2), and the Developmental Test of Visual Perception-Third Edition (DTVP-3).
[9] According to the District’s response to a January 2026 state complaint, addressed in more detail supra, this was a misunderstanding as Student does not miss recess to receive Grid C services. (S-27).
[10] For his reading phonics benchmark, he was successfully decoding (between 94-100% accuracy) up to three-syllable words. Student was spelling multi-syllable words with specific spelling patterns with 70% accuracy, and words with digraphs and trigraphs with 75% accuracy. Student could write 3 paragraph narratives with support and writing tools (graphic organizer, editing checklist, and rubric) and a 2-paragraph narrative, independently, with the same writing tools. In his writing, Student was more successful with topic development (scoring a 3 or 4 out of 4) but struggled with writing conventions due to errors with missing capital letters, punctuation, and some spelling (scoring a 1 or 2 out of 3). (S-27).
[11] The November 2025 IEP was also revised to include a summary of the Psychological Report but not the OT Evaluation (instead retaining a summary of a 2024 OT evaluation and teacher input that did not accurately reflect Student’s needs), which Ms. Frain admitted was an oversight. (P-2; S-27; Frain, 94-95).
[12] According to the N1 – Notice of Proposed School District Action (N1 Form) pertaining to the November 2025 Amended IEP, Parents waived a meeting to review the rejections, preferring to discuss them directly with Ms. Fay.
[13] The term “ELA Support” is a carryover from the elementary model. The middle school follows the same model with a different title (“Academic Support”). The change in wording had no impact on the proposed services. (Frain, 98-100).
[14] Ms. Smith has been teaching grade 5 for four years but has taught for a total of nine years in grades 4, 5 and 6. She is licensed in elementary education grades 1-6 and visual arts Pre-K through 8. She also has a Sheltered English Immersion endorsement.
[15] According to the N1 Form for the December 2025 Amended IEP, Parents waived a meeting to develop this IEP, preferring to discuss the proposed revisions from the November 2025 Amended IEP, that she had rejected, directly with Ms. Frain, Ms. Fay and the Superintendent on December 8, 2025. (S-27)
[16] No information was provided during the Hearing to explain what reading and written language work was expected to occur during Math. No new math-related goal was added to this IEP, however.
[17] At Mother’s request, the December 2025 Amended IEP also deleted the information in the Communication PLAAFP which had addressed Student’s performance during speech sessions. Despite there having been no proposal for speech therapy, this information had been included in all of the prior IEPs and Amendments. Additionally, the December 2025 Amended IEP added a summary of the OT Evaluation. (P-2; S-27; Frain, 77)
[18] Although having taught grade 5 in another district for six years, this is Ms. Baker’s first year in the District. She is licensed as a regular education elementary teacher for grades 1 through 6.
[19] Ms. Baker provides feedback and support on written work and an opportunity to make corrections to all students. This is not a support provided to Student solely by virtue of his IEP provisions. (Baker, 119).
[20] The second issue is not relevant to the instant matter. The Letter of Closure also noted that Parents had initially filed a Complaint with PRS on December 11, 2025, involving the requested push-in supports for science and social studies, but as the December 2025 Amended IEP had not yet been signed at that time, PRS notified Parents that the Complaint was premature. Subsequent to rejecting the December 2025 Amended IEP, Parents re-filed their Complaint with PRS. (S-2; S-27).
[21] 20 USC 1400, et seq.; M.G.L. c. 71B; 34 CFR 300.000, et seq.; 603 CMR 28.00 et seq.; see 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A) (the first purpose of the IDEA is “to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a [FAPE] that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living”).
[22] 20 USC 1401(9), (26), (29); C.D. v. Natick Pub. Sch. Dist., 924 F.3d 621, 624 (1st Cir. 2019), quoting Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Schs., 580 U.S. 154, 158 (2017).
[23] Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 580 U.S. 386, 399–400, 403 (2017); C.G. & B.S. v. Five Town Cmty. Sch. Dist., 513 F.3d 279, 284 (1st Cir. 2008), quoting Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Central Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 207 (1982); see Johnson v. Boston Pub. Schs., 906 F.3d 182, 194–95 (1st Cir. 2018) (holding that Massachusetts’ “meaningful educational benefit” standard adopted by the First Circuit in D.B. v. Esposito, 675 F.3d 26, 34 (1st Cir. 2012), comports with the Endrew F. standard).
[24] See Lessard v. Wilton Lyndeborough Coop. Sch. Dist., 518 F.3d 18, 29 (1st Cir. 2008).
[25] Endrew F., 580 US at 402 (however, in Ftnt 2, the Court recognizes that this does not mean that “every handicapped child who is advancing from grade to grade... is automatically receiving a [FAPE]” quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 203 n. 25 (1982).
[26] Sebastian M. v. King Philip Reg'l Sch. Dist., 685 F.3d 79, 84 (1st Cir. 2012); Lenn v. Portland Sch. Comm., 998 F.2d 1083, 1086 (1st Cir. 1993); Esposito, 675 F.3d at 34.
[27] Lenn, 998 F. 2d at 1089-90; quoting Burlington v. Dept. of Ed., 736 F.2d 773, 788 (1st Cir. 1984) aff’d 471 US 359 (1985); see Roland M. v. Concord Sch. Comm., 910 F. 2d 983, 992 (1st Cir. 1990) (“… purely academic progress … is not the only indicia of educational benefit implicated either by the Act or by state law”).
[28] Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 391, quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 176.
[29] Roland M., 910 F. 2d at 992; see Fuhrmann v. E. Hanover Bd. of Educ., 993 F.2d 1031, 1040 (3d Cir. 1993) (the “adequacy of an IEP can only be determined as of the time it is offered to the student, and not at some later date”) citing Rowley, 458 US at 206-07; see also D.S. v. Bayonne Bd. of Educ., 602 F.3d 553, 565 (3d Cir. 2010) (“evidence acquired subsequently to the creation of an IEP [can] only [be used] to evaluate the reasonableness of the school district's decisions at the time that they were made”).
[30] G.D. v. Westmoreland Sch. Dist., 930 F.2d 942, 948 (1st Cir., 1991); see Rowley, 458 US at 197 n. 21 (“[w]hatever Congress meant by an ‘appropriate’ education, it is clear that it did not mean a potential-maximizing education”).
[31] Lenn, 998 F. 2d at 1089-90; see Sebastian M., 685 F. 3d 79, 84 (“… an IEP need not be designed to furnish a disabled child with the maximum educational benefit possible”).
[32] 20 U.S.C § 1412(a)(5)(A) () (requiring that for a state to meet its LRE obligation, to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, … are educated with children who are not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities 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); 34 CFR 300.114(a)(2)(i); see M.G.L. c. 71 B, §§ 2, 3; 603 CMR 28.01 (definition of “least restrictive environment”); 603 CMR 28.06(2)(c).
[33] 34 CFR 300.320(a)(4); see 34 CFR 300.42 (defining “supplementary aids and services” to “… mean[] aids, services, and other supports that are provided in regular education classes, other education-related settings, and in extracurricular and nonacademic settings, to enable children with disabilities to be educated with nondisabled children to the maximum extent appropriate in accordance with 300.114 through 300.116”).
[34] See 20 USC 1414(d)(3)(C) see 34 CFR 300.324(b)(3).
[35] See Kristin Jacobs v. Salt Lake City Sch. Dist., 154 F.4th 790, 802-03 (10th Cir. 2025) citing Ellenberg v. New Mexico Mil. Inst., 478 F.3d 1262, 1268 (10th Cir. 2007).
[36] OSEP Policy Memorandum 95-9, regarding Questions and Answers on the Least Restrictive Environment Requirements of the [IDEA] (Answer to Question 8), 21 IDELR 1152 (OSEP, 1994) (“In determining if a placement is appropriate under IDEA, the following factors are relevant: the educational benefits available to the disabled student in a traditional classroom, supplemented with appropriate aids and services, in comparison to the educational benefits to the disabled student from a special education classroom; the non-academic benefits to the disabled student from interacting with nondisabled students; and the degree of disruption of the education of other students, resulting in the inability to meet the unique needs of the disabled student. However, school districts may not make placements based solely on factors such as the following: category of disability; severity of disability; configuration of delivery system; availability of educational or related services; availability of space; or administrative convenience” (emphasis in original)); see Letter to Vanwart, 20 IDELR 1217 (OSEP, 1993). While the IDEA has been reauthorized twice since the issuance of this Guidance, the underlying provisions pertaining to LRE have not changed.
[37] OSEP Memo 95-9, 21 IDELR 1152, (Answer to Question 8); see 34 C.F.R. § 300.116.
[38] See Jacobs, 154 F.4th at 802
[39] Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 56–57, 62 (2005).
[40] Id. (placing the burden of proof in an administrative hearing on the party seeking relief).
[41] 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.
[42] OSEP Memo 95-9, 21 IDELR 1152, (Answer to Question 8); see 34 C.F.R. § 300.116.
[43] See Student v. Ipswich Pub. Schs., BSEA No. 23-01247, 29 MSER 107 (Kantor Nir, 2023) (finding that although the humanities text was observed by parents experts to be above the student’s reading level in the general education inclusion classroom, the teachers credibly testified to the numerous accommodations that were provided to assist the student in accessing such text); compare J.H. ex rel. A.H. v. Fort Bend Indep. Sch. Dist., 482 F. App'x 915, 919 (5th Cir. 2012) (upholding the district’s decision to place a student, into substantially separate classes in science and social studies, where, based upon reliable testimony of the teachers for those classes, the hearing officer found the student to be “becoming increasingly overwhelmed by the difficulty of the general education classes in social studies and science”).
[44] Additionally, Student’s winter 2026 language usage NWEA Benchmark was under his goal by 4 points and was only one point higher than his spring 2025 Benchmark score, reflecting low growth and low achievement.
[45] In response to this evaluation, the Team properly proposed the OT Evaluation to better understand Student’s specific writing needs.
[46] C.G., 513 F.3d at 290 (“Compensatory education is a surrogate for the warranted education that a disabled child may have missed during periods when his IEP was so inappropriate that he was effectively denied a FAPE” (citations omitted)).
[47] Florence Cty. Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 US 7, 16 (1993); Johnson v. Bos. Pub. Sch., 201 F.Supp.3d 187, 202 (D. Mass. 2016), aff'd, 906 F.3d 182 (1st Cir. 2018) (“compensatory education may be awarded; however, [it] is ‘not an automatic entitlement but, … a discretionary remedy for nonfeasance or misfeasance in connection with a school system’s obligations under the IDEA’” (citations omitted)).
[48] See C.G., 513 F.3d at 286, citing Roland M., 910 F.2d at 995; In Re: Haverhill Pub. Sch., BSEA No. 2005314, 26 MSER 176 (Berman, 2020) (“Hearing officers may deny compensatory services if parents unreasonably obstruct the IEP process or otherwise interfere with the ability of the school district to fulfill its obligations”).
[49] With respect to the omission of direct OT services, it was even shorter – approximately two weeks of time.
[50] Parents’ rejection of the December 2025 Amended IEP also kept Student from receiving the proposed B-Grid supports in his math class. Student’s response to the introduction of B-Grid supports in an academic subject would have been highly relevant evidence to these proceedings if it had existed.
[51] Hampton Sch. Dist. v. Dobrowolski, 976 F.2d 48, 54 (1st Cir. 1992); see Roland M., 910 F.2d at 994.
[52] The Hearing Officer gratefully acknowledges the support of BSEA Intern Iman Aoun with the legal research and preparation of the Legal Analysis portion of this decision.