COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Student and Stoneham Public Schools
BSEA #2610932
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 25, 2026, Parents filed a Hearing Request against Stoneham Public Schools (“District” or “SPS”). The matter was assigned to Hearing Officer Kantor Nir. On April 14, 2026, Hearing Officer Kantor Nir issued a Ruling on [District’s] Partial Motion to Dismiss dismissing with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, a claim that Student was denied a FAPE due to the District’s refusal of a classroom reassignment. On April 23, 2026, the matter was reassigned to the underlying Hearing Officer for administrative reasons. The Hearing was convened on the initially scheduled date of April 29, 2026, and, for good cause to allow for the completion of witness testimony, at the joint written request of the parties was continued to April 30, 2026, and May 5, 2026. The Hearing was held via a virtual platform, also jointly requested by the Parties.
The official record of the Hearing consists of documents submitted by Parents and marked as Exhibits P-A through and inclusive of P-O; documents submitted by the District and marked as Exhibits S-1 through and inclusive of S-18, S-19A, S-19B, S-20 through and inclusive of S-25; and approximately 8 hours of stenographically recorded oral testimony by nine witnesses resulting in a 3-volume transcript.
Those present for all or part of the proceedings, all of whom agreed to participate virtually, were:
Mother
Father
Colby N. Brunt, Esquire Attorney for SPS
Dr. Jordan Weymer Principal – Robinhood Elementary School – SPS
Sarah O’Leary Director of Special Education– SPS
Denise Mannix Special Education Coordinator – SPS
Alessandra Chirichiello Kindergarten Teacher – SPS
Danielle Tucker Preschool Director – SPS
Julia Belibasakis School Psychologist – SPS
Hearther Ballou Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA) – SPS
Susanna Scafidi Special Educator – SPS
Christine Gallagher Special Educator – SPS
Jessica Donovan Speech Language Pathologist – SPS
Hannah Aveni Applied Behavior Analyst (ABA) Technician – SPS
Rebecca Baron Court Reporter – Advanced Court Reporting
Marguerite M. Mitchell Hearing Officer
As English is not the primary language spoken by Parents, both prior to and throughout the hearing, they were continually offered the support of a translator at no cost, which they declined and at no time did Parents indicate or were they observed to have any language barriers in the course of the proceedings. At the conclusion of the testimony, on May 5, 2026, the Parties submitted oral closing arguments and the record closed on that date.
ISSUES IN DISPUTE:
The issues for hearing in this matter are as follows:
1. Whether the District denied Student a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) by:
A. maintaining him in a classroom causing emotional distress and fear;
B. conducting evaluations while Student was emotionally dysregulated and unable to access learning;
C. failing to investigate or respond to documented safety concerns; or
D. attempting to move Student to a substantially separate placement without parental agreement; and
2. Whether the individualized education program (IEP) proposed in November 2025, is reasonably calculated to provide Student with a FAPE[1]?
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES:
Parents’ Position
Parents contend that the District’s recommendation to move Student from a general education kindergarten classroom to a substantially separate placement was improperly predetermined and not supported by appropriate data. They point to IEP documents obtained through a public records request as evidence of predetermination. Parents maintain that Student was making progress in areas such as phonics, spelling, and math and argue that the District failed to adequately consider, implement, or document less restrictive supports before recommending a substantially separate program. They further assert that they were denied meaningful participation in the IEP process, citing discrepancies between IEP versions contained in Student’s records and those provided to them for review and signature. Parents also contend that the District failed to address Student’s increasing anxiety and avoidance behaviors toward his teacher, despite their concerns and video evidence documenting such behaviors. According to Parents, the District refused to consider their proposed interventions, including placement in a different general education classroom, and instead insisted on a substantially separate placement. As a result, Student has not attended school since January 21, 2026.
District’s Position
The District asserts that Student requires a substantially separate placement to receive a FAPE. It contends that all evaluative data, including Parents’ independent evaluation from Boston Children’s Hospital (BCH), support placement in a substantially separate Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) program, known as the RISE program. The District notes that it first recommended the RISE program in spring 2024, but Parents declined that placement. After Student returned from living abroad in fall 2025, the District implemented his stay-put inclusion IEP and placed him in a general education kindergarten classroom while conducting an early reevaluation. According to the District, Student exhibited significant behavioral dysregulation that impeded his ability to access the curriculum and interact with peers, despite intensive supports, accommodations, and one-to-one or two-to-one staffing. Following review of the reevaluation results in November 2025, the Team again recommended the RISE program, which Parents rejected in March 2026. The District maintains that moving Student to a different general education classroom would not provide the comprehensive supports he requires and denies that it predetermined Student’s placement or otherwise violated the IDEA’s procedural requirements.
FACTUAL FINDINGS:[2]
1. Student is an “engaging, sweet” “amazing” and “kind” boy who is usually happy and makes others smile when he smiles. He loves school, having stories read aloud to him, puzzles, animals, books and “Jiji” (a computer program entitled “ST Math”). Student turned seven during the course of the Hearing. Student is raised in a dual-language (Albanian and English) home. He first received early intervention (EI) services at two and a half years old. According to Student’s December 14, 2021 Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP), he originally qualified for EI services in May of 2021, but the family declined them as they felt his language delays were attributable to his dual language home status. He was re-referred for EI by his pediatrician due to language skills concerns on December 14, 2021, and was again found eligible in the areas of language and personal/social skills. At that time, Parents accepted the services in accordance with the pediatrician’s advice, who also recommended that Student undergo a developmental evaluation at BCH, for which he was placed on a waitlist. (P-B; S-11; Mother VI-38, 85-86; Belibasakis, VI-143; Weymer VII-68; Mannix VIII-34; Chirichiello VIII-95).
2. The District initially proposed evaluating Student for special education eligibility (in the areas of speech/articulation, language, and academic achievement) in February 2022. Parents rejected this on March 16, 2022, as they had already enrolled Student in pre-school and preferred Student be evaluated after he had been attending school. (P-B; Mother VI-83-85).
3. In September of 2022, at the age of 3, Student began attending pre-school, initially as a model student, in an integrated classroom taught by a dually certified regular and special education teacher and a paraprofessional. On November 10, 2022, Parents consented to a speech and language evaluation, and a school behavior observation[3]. At the resulting Team meeting on January 24, 2023, Student was found eligible for special education based upon a communication disability and an IEP was developed with goals in the areas of school behavior, academics and communications. Student was provided with A-Grid Consultation from a BCBA and ABA Technician as well as a Speech and Language Pathologist (SLP) 15 minutes weekly; B-Grid Classroom Readiness and Play Skills supports from a Special Education Teacher and ABA Technician 105 minutes daily as well as 90 minutes of daily academic supports from a Special Education Teacher; and C-Grid Speech and Language services daily[4]. Specialized transportation on a vehicle with a 5-point harness was provided. Placement was proposed in the integrated preschool classroom. Parents accepted this IEP and placement in full on February 28, 2023. On April 24, 2023, Extended School Year (ESY) services were also proposed which Parents accepted on May 9, 2023.
In Student’s second year of pre-school, Parents consented to an Occupational Therapy Evaluation[5] that resulted in an IEP amendment, accepted on November 20, 2023, adding Occupational Therapy (OT) services. At Student’s annual review, the Team proposed a new IEP covering January 3, 2024 through January 2, 2025, which revised Student’s goals and objectives and increased services and supports, including the addition of a second 15 minute weekly BCBA consultation and ESY BCBA consultation, increasing the ABA Technician support from 105 to 180 minutes daily, and adding ESY occupational therapy services. The “Additional Information” section indicated that the Team would reconvene in Spring 2024 to plan for Student’s transition to kindergarten in Fall 2024. This IEP, discussed in greater detail, infra, was fully accepted by Parents on January 25, 2024, and is Student’s last accepted IEP (Stay-Put IEP). (P-A; P-B; S-4; S-9; S-19A; S-19B; S-20; S-22; Mother VI-38-39, 54; Mannix VIII-26-27).
4. Danielle Tucker was the Pre-School Director during the 2023-2024 school year. She has worked in early childhood for 25 years, the last 7 as an administrator. She is licensed as a Principal/Assistant Principal, Special Education Coordinator, Early Childhood Educator and a Reading Specialist. According to Ms. Tucker, during the 2023-2024 school year, Student struggled to access instruction, frequently acting in a self-directed manner, separate from his classmates, playing with a preferred toy or sitting at a private desk for snack, and frequently exhibiting disrobing and eloping behavior (that Ms. Tucker defined as leaving a designated area of the classroom, not the room itself). He was, at times, with a visual prompt, able to return to the group. Although Student’s IEP did not provide for 1:1 support, he was supported daily by an ABA Technician who implemented an ABA-based reinforcement system on a 1:1 basis. Ms. Tucker believed Student was not making effective progress in the pre-school setting, however acknowledged that she did not have any documentation to support her opinion. (Tucker VI-104-06, 110, 113-15; Weymer VII-84-85).
5. Heather Ballou is the District’s Board-Certified Behavioral Analyst (BCBA), having been a certified, licensed BCBA both nationally and in Massachusetts since 2011. She has a master’s degree and completed ABA coursework and fieldwork and has been employed in the District, initially as an ABA Technician, since 2009. She has worked with and observed Student both during his time in pre-school and this school year in Kindergarten and was a member of his pre-school and Kindergarten Teams. (Ballou VIII-172-73).
6. On March 12, 2024, Student underwent the BCH neuropsychological evaluation for which he had been waitlisted since December 2021. The District supported this recommended evaluation. The BCH multidisciplinary evaluation team, which consisted of a developmental-behavioral pediatrician, a psychologist, and a developmental-behavioral pediatric fellow, conducted standardized testing, reviewed the District’s prior OT evaluation and obtained information from Student’s pre-school teacher and SLP. BCH diagnosed Student with ASD and Global Development Delay (GDD). Parents were concerned that this testing lasted only three hours, on one day, occurred in an unfamiliar setting and did not consider parental input or Student’s positive behaviors during the evaluation. Mother agreed that, during the evaluation, Student at times left the testing room to run down the hall to Mother to give her a hug, explaining that this was likely due to Student being without Mother in the unfamiliar testing room for a long period of time. (P-B; S-18; Mother VI-39-40, 52-53).
7. Parents disagreed with Student’s ASD diagnosis from BCH, noting that it was made by one specialist who met Student once when he was four[6]. Based on Parents’ research, although ASD is reportedly more prevalent in boys and typically identified before age two and a half, Student was not diagnosed until this evaluation. Also, Student’s longstanding pediatrician did not previously identify ASD or recommend related supports, something Parents view as inconsistent with the diagnosis. Further, Student’s comprehensive EI evaluation that he had at age two and a half only found a communication delay[7], and no EI providers raised a potential ASD diagnosis. (S-2; Mother VI-39-40, 52-53, 64-66).
8. The “History of Presenting Concerns” in the BCH evaluation states,
Concerns regarding [Student’s] development first emerged around the time he was 2 years old when his pediatrician noted delays in his speech development. He was evaluated by [EI] and began receiving speech therapy. At age 3, he began to receive services through the [District] including preschool placement and continued speech therapy. His teachers and speech therapist have since noted concerns surrounding his language development as well as behavioral rigidity, decreased eye contact, reduced social skills, and sensory-seeking behaviors. He is currently in his second year of preschool and now receives occupational as well as speech therapy. He is reported to be making progress in following routines and accepting play with others. (S-18).
9. The Team reconvened on April 8, April 22, and June 10, 2024, to review the BCH evaluation and discuss Student’s Kindergarten placement. Consistent with the BCH recommendation, the Team proposed that Student be placed in the RISE program, a substantially separate program that educated students with ASD. The Team also confirmed its recommendation that Student participate in ESY that summer[8]. The District sent Parents both an IEP amendment and a fully revised IEP reflecting these proposals (Amended 24-25 IEP). The RISE program is an ABA-based program using discrete trials and individualized educational programming to meet the needs of each student, while providing opportunities for integration into grade-level general education classrooms. The RISE classroom teacher attended the second and third Team meetings to share information about the program and to answer any of Parents’ questions. (P-B; S-2; S-3; S-6; S-7; S-8; S-18; Mother VI-40; Tucker VI-107-08; Ballou VIII-173, 182).
10. Ms. Ballou supported the Team’s recommendation for Student to attend the RISE program for Kindergarten, based on the data collected at that time, Student’s progress towards his IEP goals and objectives, the challenges he had accessing whole group instruction and Student’s frequent self-removal from the larger group, as well as the amount of support Student needed to access the curriculum. (Ballou VIII-175).
11. According to Parents, documents related to the Amended 24-25 IEP were created without their input and never provided to them. Specifically, they were never sent a form entitled “Primary Disability/Level of Need – PL3: 3–21-year-olds” (PL3) that was part of Student’s student record file. The PL3 indicates that Student’s “Level of Need” was “04-high” for ages of 6-21 years old, although Student was only 5 at that time. Parents believe this form is evidence that the District unilaterally pre-determined Student to have an ASD level of 4, although no levels of ASD are indicated anywhere in the BCH evaluation. Parents also believe that by not receiving this form earlier, they were forced to make decisions without a complete picture thereby impacting their ability to fully participate in the development of Student’s IEPs. (P-F; P-O; Mother VI-65-66, 74-77; Father VIII-200).
12. According to Ms. Tucker, who chaired the Team meetings which resulted in the proposal of Amended 24-25 IEP, and Denise Mannix[9], the PL3 is an internal clerical document that is not typically sent to parents with a proposed IEP; it is maintained in the student record file and thus is produced in response to any request for a copy of a student record. It specifically indicates under its title that it is “for school district record keeping only”. The District uses it to code students so it can properly address their special education needs. Ms. Tucker and Ms. Mannix explained that the PL3 is a wholly a computer-generated form, and that the “level of need” for 6–21-year-olds is determined pursuant to a formula noted at the bottom of the PL3[10], involving the number of boxes checked in Rows 1- 3. The boxes in this section appear in three columns entitled “primary setting(s)”, “service provider(s)”, and “percent of program time receiving special education services”. According to the formula, “if two or three boxes are checked in Row 3, indicate high”. The computer automatically checks the boxes; however, it does so based on the information input into an IEP service delivery grid, developed at Team meetings. For Student, the PL3 for the Amended 24-25 IEP had all three boxes checked in Row 3[11]. Ms. Tucker, Ms. Mannix and Ms. Ballou confirmed that the Team discussed all the information contained in Row 3, including Student’s service delivery grid and placement of in RISE for Kindergarten, at all three meetings held for the Amended 24-25 IEP. Parents were provided with meeting summaries reflecting these discussions after each meeting. As for why information about 6–21-year-olds was included, it is because Kindergarten falls withing this range. (P-B; P-F; S-6; S-7; S-8; TuckerVI-98-99, 103-04; Mannix VIII-10-11, 16-17; Ballou VII-171).
13. Parents observed the RISE program with Ms. Tucker. Mother cannot recall if the classroom she saw was the classroom proposed for Student. Parents never responded to the Amended 24-25 IEP. At the June 2024 Team meeting Parents expressed distrust of the BCH evaluation. They were planning to travel to Albania that summer and advised that they desired to have a further evaluation completed upon their return before deciding on the proposed Amended 24-25 IEP. Parents requested that Student be retained in pre-school for an additional year, which the Team did not agree to do. (S-2; S-6; Mother VI-60, 70; Tucker VI-109-11).
14. Student’s final pre-school report card (June 12, 2024) indicated “consistent” (noted as a 3) gross motor skills and the independent use of writing utensils with “emerging” (noted as a 2) handwriting-related skills, including finger grasp, drawing a person, and tracing/printing his name. He also consistently made independent choices, though most non-academic skills were still emerging or “seldom” (noted as a 1) demonstrated. Academically, he showed “consistent” skills in basic literacy and math foundations, including listening to stories, recognizing his name and lowercase letters, handling books appropriately, counting 1–20, and recognizing numbers 1–10, with other skills “emerging” or “seldom demonstrated”. The report noted “amazing progress,” including increased participation in non-preferred activities, improved transitions, and growing demonstration of skills, though he continued to experience frequent frustration with tasks. He was described as well-liked and socially engaged with peers, and was recommended to further develop fine motor skills, particularly cutting and writing his name. (P-D).
15. Student’s June 12, 2024 progress report reflected measurable gains across multiple domains. He was working toward remaining seated for 10 minutes, achieving 7–19 minutes over five days with a token system and frequent reinforcement, and demonstrated strong progress in accepting denied requests (87%) and transitioning between activities (78%). He showed “excellent progress” in peer interaction goals, including sharing, turn-taking, and completing shared tasks with support, though skills remained inconsistent without adult prompting.
Academically, Student made “ongoing” progress with brief participation in non-preferred tasks using structured supports, (such as “sandwiching” non-preferred activities with preferred activities) and consistently engaged in independent parallel and limited associative play with peers only with adult support and visual and verbal prompts, though he frequently ignored peer engagement.
Communication skills showed mixed progress, including improved following of simple directions, use of 2–3 word phrases in 60% of opportunities, and supported sharing, but continued difficulty with consistent turn-taking and pretend play. In sensory and motor planning, Student demonstrated emerging gains in imitation, self-care participation, group engagement, and basic pre-writing strokes (he could form a vertical and horizontal line and circle), though sustained attention remained limited. (P-4).
16. Dr. Jordan Weymer has been the Principal of Robin Hood School since the 2023-2024 school year. He holds a Bachelor’s, a Masters, a Certificate of Advanced Graduate Studies (CAGS) and a Doctor of Philosophy in educational leadership. He is licensed as an Elementary Principal / Assistant Principal, Superintendent / Assistant Superintendent, Elementary Educator and History Teacher. Student’s pre-School and Kindergarten classes were located at Robin Hood School. There are 364 students at Robin Hood School, approximately 90 of whom are on IEPs, 10 with an ASD diagnosis. (Weymer VII-40-41, 67, 78-79).
17. According to Principal Weymer, the progress reflected in the June 12, 2024 Report Card and Progress Reports show progress must be viewed in the context of Student’s starting point at the beginning of that school year, as well as the grade level expectations for a general education classroom as compared to his integrated placement at that time. Ms. Mannix also agrees that Student’s June 12, 2024 Report Card reflects Students’ progress towards his goals as measured against himself. (Weymer VII-81-83; Mannix VIII-12).
18. Student attended 6 of 18 ESY sessions in summer 2024. Progress reports indicated he could remain seated for up to 10 minutes of morning meeting with frequent reinforcement (token system, praise approximately every 90 seconds, and edible/toy rewards), though he averaged 3.25 departures from his seat per 10 minutes. With adult support, he participated in turn-taking with a peer 71% of the time and successfully transitioned from morning meeting to centers, engaging in preferred activities for 6–8 minutes. He played alongside peers using shared toys but required adult prompting to respond to peer invitations and did not independently initiate play with others. (P-D).
19. Student did not attend school during the 2024-2025 school year, as he and his family were in Albania for the entirety of that school year. The unsigned Amended 24-25 IEP expired during their absence. Parents continued to communicate with Ms. Mannix during that year and had a virtual meeting with her, Ms. Tucker, Principal Weymer, and Ms. Ballou on September 11, 2024. Upon returning, Ms. Mannix offered but Parents declined to have Student attend the 2025 ESY program. He attended a privately paid Step Up enrichment Boys and Girls Club summer camp program located at the school. (S-3; Mother VI-40; Mannix VIII-36-37, 50, 68-69).
20. Parents enrolled Student in Kindergarten starting in September 2025. As no active IEP existed, the District planned to educate Student in accordance with the Stay-Put IEP[12]. The Stay-Put IEP included goals in the areas of school behavior, academics (through the conclusion of pre-school only), communication, and sensory processing & motor planning. For Kindergarten, services involved consultation by a BCBA with the general and special education teachers and separately with the ABA technician, 15 minutes weekly for each; 15 minutes monthly consultation by the SLP; 180 minutes of daily ABA Technician support in the general education environment; six 30-minute sessions of individual speech therapy per four cycles; two 30-minute sessions of individual occupational therapy per four cycles[13]; and ESY services. Transportation on a specialized transportation vehicle with a 5-point harness was provided. Accommodations included frequent check-ins, a visual schedule, visual supports for activities, repeated exposure to new materials, confirming attention before delivering instruction, clear and concise step by step instructions, repetition or rephrasing of instructions, breaking down tasks, use of a behavior contract (i.e., a token board), first/then contracting, wait time, movement breaks, a visual time, and “… flexible seating [ ] accessible when appropriate (e.g., sitting to the side of or behind large groups, sit at individual table during snack time or lunch)” due to Student’s “fluctuating intolerance at times of being in close proximity to others”. (S-4; Mannix VIII-71-72).
21. Ms. Ballou was in Student’s classroom approximately every other day providing IEP consultation, observing Student, or delivering emergency behavioral support when the ABA technician was unavailable. She reported that, compared to preschool, Student entered kindergarten with increased expressive language (though still below grade level), improved number sense, longer attention to tasks, and more consistent, though still variable, eye contact. He continued to require highly structured instruction with tasks broken into small steps and incorporating his interests. While he exhibited similar dysregulated behaviors (yelling, crying, wandering/running), he also developed new behaviors, including mouthing inedible objects such as wood chips and self-soothing behaviors. Ongoing significant receptive language delays were also noted. (S-14; Ballou VIII-175-77, 180-81).
22. On September 9, 2025, Ms. Mannix met with Parents and Principal Weymer to review Student’s Stay-Put IEP and to discuss the unsigned Amended 24-25 IEP. As the District no longer had updated present levels of performance to work from, it had recommended moving up Student’s three-year reevaluation from January 2026 to the fall of 2025. The District proposed to conduct standardized testing, a functional behavioral assessment, observations and an educational assessment. Parents consented to this proposal at the conclusion of this meeting, although Mother testified that they would have preferred it to be delayed to allow Student to acclimate to an educational classroom again. Ms. Mannix noted that by the time the Team met to review the results of the evaluations Student had been in school for two months. (P-A; S-10; Mother VI-41; Mannix VIII-13-14, 36-38, 55, 63-65).
23. Between September 10 and October 21, 2025, Ms. Ballou conducted a Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) of Student consisting of a record review, daily data collection in specific targeted areas (noncompliance, crying/yelling, elopement and materials disruption), a teacher interview, and three observations during September and early October totaling 153 minutes. It did not include a parent interview, because she felt she already knew Parents’ priorities from prior conversations that school year.
Overall, the teacher interview and observations indicated that Student was primarily self-directed and rarely completed classwork alongside peers. His learning was significantly impacted by behaviors including inattention, elopement, wandering/running, and lying on the floor, such behaviors primarily maintained by escape from tasks and access to preferred items or sensory input, and not consistently responsive to consequences. Although he demonstrated emerging kindergarten skills (letter/number identification, counting, and reading familiar words), he required frequent adult prompting and structured first/then supports and was inconsistently able to complete tasks independently. Socially, he did not initiate communication or play, though he responded to prompts. His peer engagement had decreased over time, though, as he shifted from sitting with peers during meals to eating separately at an individual table in the classroom for snack and at lunch in the cafeteria. During observation, Student required repeated prompting and 1:1 support to complete a brief writing task over 10 minutes with breaks, and did not participate in whole-group instruction, instead engaging in off-task motor behaviors despite redirection.
FBA data showed frequent noncompliance (averaging 74 minutes daily over 29 days), significantly reduced on-task behavior compared to peers (42% vs. 99%), and 11 instances of elopement (defined as leaving classroom, playground, gym without permission or walking more than 5 feet away from an adult in the hallway), most often during transitions or academic demands. The FBA recommended additional social skills assessment, social skills coaching and services throughout the school day, and visual supports (aids, checklists and pairing pictures with social scripts), as well as accommodations including a visual schedule, first/then contracting, task breakdown, flexible seating, reduced distractions, frequent breaks, and developing a BCBA-supported behavior intervention plan (BIP). Ms. Ballou explained that a BIP was being developed but was not completed when Student stopped attending school (as discussed further below). (S-14; Ballou VIII-178-80, 191-93).
24. In mid-September 2025, Student underwent an OT evaluation including a classroom observation. During observation, after a timed preferred break, Student disregarded directives to transition to the existing whole group instruction, instead repeatedly leaving his seat and accessing playdough while running around the room laughing, despite six redirections, requiring first/then prompting to return to task.
On standardized testing, Student scored in the below average range for visual-motor integration (SS 86) and motor coordination (SS 80), and in the very low range for visual perception (SS 45), with relative strength in copying simple shapes. The School Function Assessment indicated moderate to significant limitations in participation and task performance across routines, transitions, and group activities. While basic fine motor skills were present (grip, scissors use, letter copying), writing samples showed difficulties with spacing, alignment, and placement. Sensory ratings indicated elevated needs across domains impacting regulation and participation.
Overall, Student demonstrated delays in visual-perceptual and fine motor skills and significant sensory processing challenges affecting classroom participation and functioning. The evaluator indicated he would benefit from structured routines, clear expectations, sensory regulation strategies, and consistent adult guidance to prompt attention, task completion and overall success in the classroom. Recommendations included reduced distractions, visual supports (schedules, timers, first/then systems), consistent routines and transitions, sensory regulation strategies (quiet break space, frequent movement breaks) and tools (fidgets, weighted lap pads, putty), alterative seating options (wobble cushion or standing desk), and adaptive writing supports, with consideration of alternative response formats such as typing or verbal responses. (S-17).
25. In In late September to mid-October 2025, Student completed a four-session Speech and Language Evaluation. He was generally cooperative when seated with a familiar evaluator but demonstrated inconsistent attention, required frequent redirection, and was difficult to re-engage after breaks despite responsiveness to first/then supports. His limited engagement and self-directed behavior were noted to impact the validity of standardized testing results.
Formal assessment on the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-Preschool, Third Edition (CLEF-P3) indicated very low core language abilities in both receptive and expressive domains, with strengths in expressive labeling and visually supported tasks. Student demonstrated significant receptive language weaknesses requiring repetition, modeling, and visual supports. Pragmatic assessment (PLSI) placed his social communication skills in the significantly below average range (SS 62), with notable difficulties in classroom, social, and personal interaction. Observations indicated emerging hyperlexic skills (i.e., the ability to accurately read words but without corresponding comprehension and expressive language use), echolalic responses, limited functional expressive language, and delayed foundational skills in joint attention, reciprocity, and symbolic play. Articulation, voice, and fluency were in the average range.
Overall, Student was found to have a receptive, expressive, and pragmatic language disorder. Recommendations included intensive language intervention focused on comprehension and functional communication, along with structured visual supports (schedules, first/then systems, picture symbols), simplified language, predictable routines, multimodal communication strategies, and explicit teaching of social and play skills in small-group settings targeting joint attention, turn-taking, and social reciprocity. (S-16).
26. In October 2025, Student two evaluators administered the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, 4th Edition (WIAT-4), as part of his academic evaluation. He demonstrated average skills in word reading (SS 100) and spelling (SS 98), and low average reading comprehension (SS 89). In contrast, he scored in the very low range in alphabet writing fluency (SS 74) and numerical operations (SS 75), and in the extremely low range in math problem solving (SS 61). Overall composites reflected average reading (SS 92), low average written expression (SS 80), extremely low math (66), and very low total achievement (SS 76). Oral language skills were also significantly impaired, with an extremely low overall score (SS 58) and consistently very low performance across receptive and expressive language subtests.
During testing, Student’s performance was affected by fatigue and frustration, including verbal refusals, echolalic responses, and off-task behaviors, despite supports such as prompting, breaks, and incentives. He required extensive redirection, particularly for math tasks involving language demands, and showed inconsistent sustained attention and task engagement. Student’s behaviors were found to significantly influence his performance and the validity of the test scores. Overall, while Student demonstrated emerging decoding and basic academic skills, he exhibited significant weaknesses in language-based reasoning, sustained attention, and regulation, resulting in uneven academic performance. (S-15).
27. Alessandra Chirichiello has been a Kindergarten teacher for 11 years. She has a master’s degree in early childhood with and without disabilities. She is licensed as a general education teacher, not as a special education teacher. This year there are 14 students in Ms. Chirichiello’s Kindergarten class, including Student. She has a full-time paraprofessional who supports the classroom and Student also has a 1:1 ABA Technician who is in the classroom and at specials with him to support him half of every school day (180 total minutes) pursuant to the Stay-Put IEP. (Chirichiello VIII-86, 103, 127-28, 146).
28. Ms. Chirichiello completed Student’s Educational Assessment (Parts A and B) in October 2025. She reported that, as opposed to academic deficits alone, Student’s primary barriers to accessing the general education curriculum are behavioral and regulatory, including difficulties with sustained attention, remaining seated, attending whole group instruction when seated and transitioning from a preferred activity. As a result he misses key directions and lesson content, and he is unable to rotate through learning centers or meaningfully participate in small group instruction. While Student demonstrates foundational skills such as decoding short CVC words in 1:1 settings when instruction is presented step-by-step and broken down, he is unable to consistently demonstrate these skills in classroom activities or independently apply grade-level comprehension and written expression skills. Student engages in frequent off-task and sensory-seeking behaviors including laying, rolling or crawling on the floor, running around the classroom, putting non-edible objects in his mouth, laughing inappropriately, spinning in chairs, placing his face over the air conditioning vent, playing in water at the sink and washing toys.
Communication skills were noted to be below age expectations, with limited initiation and reciprocity in peer and adult interactions and reduced participation in conversational, cooperative, or imaginative play. Socially, although well liked, Student primarily engages in parallel play and has demonstrated occasional unsafe behaviors. Outdoors Student will play in puddles despite reminders not to do so, once pulled his pants down and urinated in a puddle, and he had one instance of aggressive behavior towards his ABA Technician when he was unresponsive to prompting to return after eloping down a hallway. Parents are informed of progress and concerns via daily communication either as a brief conversation at dismissal or using Class Dojo, a messaging app. Despite these challenges, Student’s memory was identified as a relative strength, as he is able to retain and recall newly learned skills, though he has difficulty generalizing and applying them in the classroom setting. (S-5; S-11; S-12; Mannix VIII-27-28; Chirichiello VIII-139-40).
29. Julia Belibasakis has been a School Psychologist for 23 years. She was a member of Student’s April 2024 Team to review the BCH evaluation and on October 21, 2025, she administered a Psychological Assessment to Student consisting of standardized testing, analysis of teacher and parent-completed behavior rating scales, a classroom observation, an informal teacher interview and a file review[14]. (P-A; S-13; Belibasakis VI-133-35).
30. Ms. Belibasakis wanted to ensure that Student had the “best opportunity to show us what he knows” and, as such, asked Ms. Chirichiello to be present to provide behavioral redirection during testing but not to provide any testing assistance. Student was reluctant to participate in testing, had difficulty following directions, and required frequent redirection and repetition to remain on task. He repeatedly left the testing table, and some assessment tasks were completed on the floor. He responded to first/then supports and a chosen break item and generally returned to testing with one prompt after breaks. During breaks, he engaged appropriately with selected toys. This level of support was highly atypical in Ms. Chirichiello’s experience. (P-A; S-13: Belibasakis VI-135-37; Chirichiello VII-123-25).
31. The WPPSI-IV has both a verbal and nonverbal component, while the PTONI tests nonverbal intelligence. On the WPPSI-IV, Student scored in the extremely low range overall, with subtest performance ranging from extremely low to borderline; however, results were significantly affected by inattention and likely underestimated his abilities. Notable intra-index variability was observed, including an average score on Similarities (SS 9) alongside an extremely low score on Information (SS 1), and discrepant performance within Visual Spatial tasks (Block Design SS 3; Object Assembly SS 9). On the PTONI, Student scored in the very low range (SS 55), though his performance was also negatively impacted by limited ability to take breaks during testing, and the results should be interpreted cautiously. (P-A; S-13; Belibasakis VI-137-39).
32. Ms. Chirichiello’s BASC-3 ratings reflected significant concerns in hyperactivity, conduct, atypicality, withdrawal, attention, social skills, communication, and study skills, with at-risk scores for learning problems, while anxiety, depression, and somatization were in the average range. Her ratings were based on Student’s daily classroom functioning. In contrast, Parent ratings were in the average range across all domains. The evaluator noted that while discrepancies between informants are expected, the divergence here was unusually large, though both sets of ratings were considered valid. She further observed that Student’s comparatively better performance during testing occurred only with substantial prompting and intensive 1:1 to 2:1 adult support, which may explain differences between structured testing sessions and typical classroom functioning. (P-A; S-13; Belibasakis VI-139-40, 146-50; Chirichiello VIII-87).
33. During observation, Student was initially lying on the floor with his feet on a bin while classmates completed independent math work. He did not respond to multiple prompts from the paraprofessional and instead moved around the classroom, requiring continuous redirection. He engaged in academic tasks only after being offered a computer break and, upon return, completed assigned activities with intensive 1:1 step-by-step support. Student did not interact with peers during the observation. Student was able to write his name on a paper, count to 9, color, cut and glue, place papers in his cubby, put on his coat, and line up for recess. (P-A; S-13).
34. The Psychological Assessment recommended direct instruction in social skills with ongoing social coaching and frequent opportunities for practice; active engagement with Student during play modeling appropriate, functional play skills; instruction with multimodal supports, with regular read-aloud activities paired with comprehension questions to promote engagement and understanding; and visual timers. (P-A; S-13; Belibasakis V1-141-42).
35. During the fall of 2025, Sarah O’Leary, Director of Special Education for the District since July 1, 2025, observed Student’s classroom for about half an hour and worked with Student on the floor to complete a handwriting/phonics task. She noted that in order for Student to trace the letters she provided him with access to a preferred toy, and 1:1 support, and that this was inconsistent with the instruction and actions of the rest of the class. (O’Leary V-1, 170-71; VII-9).
36. Principal Weymer observed Student in the classroom on multiple occasions. Student was often under tables, rolling around the floor, off-task, and unable to sustain focus for any length of time without extensive 1:1 adult support. Rather than participate with the class, he preferred to run around the room or play with water, despite adult redirection, multiple opportunities to participate. He also laughed uncontrollably at times. (Weymer VII-66-67).
37. Ms. Mannix currently has a caseload of 124 students, including Student. Student was a priority so she saw him daily. Her office is near the library, a location used as a break incentive for Student and he liked to stop by to play with her toys. Although not a direct service provider, at times Ms. Mannix supported Student when the ABA Technician was not in the classroom and offered to take him for a walk. (Mannix VIII-32-34).
38. When in the classroom, Ms. Mannix observed Student to be engaged in a different self-directed task from the rest of the class. When he was seated on the rug next to his 1:1 ABA Technician he was almost always not attending to the instruction. At times, he was upset and lay on the floor, crying or yelling, usually when asked to perform a non-preferred task. (Requiring him to do a non-preferred task was not typical, as his teacher usually put his preferences first.) Sometimes he eloped or ran in and out of her office. This occurred during a fire safety presentation, and he ran through the library while she chased him. (Mannix VIII-35-36).
39. Parents reported that, beginning in late October or early November, Student, who previously had always loved attending school, began attempting to avoid Ms. Chirichiello and would run away when he saw her. Ms. Mannix, however, testified that she never observed fear or hesitation toward Ms. Chirichiello. Student was affectionate, giving her hugs and seeking assistance by touching her arm. Student’s elopement behavior was directed toward all staff due to self-directedness rather than fear, and reports of “better days” in Ms. Chirichiello’s absence likely reflected reduced demands rather than differences in staff relationships. Ms. Chirichiello also disagreed with Parents and observed that Student loved being in school with all his friends and teachers, including her, and did not act any differently with her than with any of his other teachers. He came to her table daily to talk and ask for assistance by touching her arm and when they regularly worked together on the floor he never displayed anything that indicated he was afraid or uncomfortable with her. (Mother VI-42-43, Mannix VIII-56, 60-62; Chirichiello VIII-107-08).
40. On November 5, 2025, the Team convened to review the District’s re-evaluations. Ms. Belibasakis, Ms. Mannix, Ms. Chirichiello and Ms. Ballou were in attendance with other District staff and Parents. Ms. Mannix explained that since this was a three-year reevaluation, meeting the Team first needed to redetermine eligibility. As a result, it did not consider Student’s diagnosis from BCH in its evaluations but rather “clear[ed] the slate” and reassessed Student from “zero”. The Team endorsed both the prior autism diagnosis and a communication disability. It then determined that Student would not make progress in the general education curriculum without special education services, that the lack of progress was a result of Student’s disability, and that he required special education and/or related services to make effective progress or to access the general education curriculum. This discussion was reflected in the “Special Education Eligibility/Initial and Reevaluation Determination” (ED1) form, that Ms. Mannix completed at the Team meeting based upon the answers provided by the Team members. (P-G; S-5; Mannix VIII-14-15).
41. The Team proposed an IEP dated November 5, 2025 to November 4, 2026 (25-26 IEP) with goals in the areas of School Behavior, Reading, Communication, Fine Motor and Handwriting, Mathematics, and Social. Services were proposed consisting of regular consultation by a BCBA (weekly), SLP (per 20 day cycle) and Occupational Therapist (per 20 day cycle) in Grid A; inclusion opportunities during specials, and recess, while supported for 330 minutes daily 1:1 by an ABA Technician in Grid B[15]; and Grid C individual academic and behavior support in a substantially separate classroom, relying on a modified curriculum employing ABA teaching strategies in all areas by an ABA Technician or Special Education Teacher for 232 minutes daily, and individual Speech and Occupational Therapy services at the rate of 6 x 30 minutes per 20 day cycle[16]. (S-1).
42. A substantially separate placement was proposed in the RISE program. Ms. Mannix explained that RISE students have individualized inclusion plans based on the general education classroom, where they typically participate in breakfast and morning meeting. They leave the inclusion setting for related services and individualized instruction with a special education teacher supported by an ABA technician, using discrete trial training methods. (S-1; Mannix VIII-41-44, 65-66).
43. Accommodations included integrating Student’s interests into instruction; multisensory teaching; explicit behavioral expectations with modeling and visual supports; daily visual schedules, picture symbols, and choice boards; structured instruction with task breakdowns; social coaching and adult-facilitated peer interactions; frequent reinforcement and behavioral strategies; instruction in functional communication and social understanding; movement breaks; visual timers; structured routines; frequent check-ins; modeling of peer interaction language; fidgets’ noise-reduction headphones; a designated break space; close adult support during transitions with extended transition time and three flexible seating options (sitting near a teacher, sitting on the side or behind large groups, or sitting individually at a study carrel or private desk for academic work and meals) given Student’s fluctuating tolerance of being in close proximity to others. An individual behavior plan was also proposed. (S-1).
44. According to Mother, Parents did not agree with the District’s testing, although the ED1 form for this meeting checked “yes” as their response. Parents contend that the entire ED1 form was completed unilaterally without their input and was never sent to them when they initially received the 25-26 IEP for signature. Ms. Mannix recalls asking Parents at the November 5, 2025, Team meeting if they were satisfied with the evaluations and Parents responding yes. She noted that a yes response to this question means only that they agree the evaluations were timely completed, not that they agree with the results. (P-B; P-G; S-5; Mother VI-47-50, 73-74; Mannix VIII-14-15, 19-20).
45. Mother recalls that Student’s pediatrician attended the November 5, 2025 Team meeting but was not asked to provide input regarding Student’s ASD diagnosis or level of need. Ms. Mannix did not recall any additional attendees brought by Parents. The pediatrician was not listed on the attendance sheet. Ms. Ballou, however, recalled meeting with Parents and the pediatrician in December 2025, during which the pediatrician asked questions regarding Student’s use of a separate desk, which staff explained was an accommodation. (P-B; Mother VI-55, 65-66; Mannix VIII-40; Ballou VIII-186-89).
46. Ms. Belibasakis supports the Team’s recommendation for the RISE program based on her evaluation results, observations, and Student’s classroom performance. She opines that, even with substantial support, Student cannot access the general education curriculum and requires a smaller, structured setting with intensive specialized instruction and discrete trial teaching to meet him at his instructional level and build skills. (Belibasakis VI-144, 154-56).
47. Ms. Mannix supports the RISE recommendation based on the reevaluation data the Team reviewed, including the FBA, classroom observations, and behavioral ratings. She cites Student’s significant need for redirection, and embedded social skills instruct, as well as the intensive 2:1 support during testing, concluding that Student requires a highly structured, small-group setting with frequent breaks, hierarchy prompting, and instruction delivered at his pace. She further opines that the Team would have recommended RISE without the BCH evaluation. (Mannix VIII-21-23, 47-48, 53-54).
48. Ms. Chirichiello supports the RISE placement, stating that Student requires a quieter, less distracting setting with consistent 1:1 support. Despite extensive in-class supports, including frequent redirection, first/then strategies, and individualized assistance, Student continues to struggle academically, socially, and behaviorally, with increasing dysregulation as academic demands increase. She concludes that the general education setting is not appropriate, despite her current class size of 14 students (rather than the typical 20 to 26), which allowed Student to always have 1:1 support. As the work became harder, Student has been less successful and falling further behind, resulting in more dysregulated behaviors. Ms. Chirichiello believes the Team tried “everything in our power in the least restrictive environment to support [Student]”. Although she would love to have Student in her class for the entire year, she did not think she would be doing her job to meet his needs for success by keeping him there. (Chirichiello VIII-102-05, 25-26).
49. Ms. Ballou also supports the RISE placement, citing significant dysregulation, elopement, and safety concerns that interfere with Student’s access to instruction. From her data and observations, even when Student was sitting and looking towards the teacher, he could not attend to or participate with the class and was unable to demonstrate understanding of whole group instruction. Only when working 1:1 with his ABA Technician could Student sometimes produce some grade level work, such as writing lower case letters. Student’s lack of underlying skills delays his learning new concepts, and when he is overstimulated in the large group environment, he will remove himself from the group, and engage in dysregulated behavior, thereby further missing out on instruction. Ms. Ballou believes the District has explored every alternative and every possible accommodation within the lesser restrictive setting. Drawing from her knowledge of Student since pre-school, despite increased services and supports in both his classrooms, Student continues to be overwhelmed in the larger classroom environment and needs significant 1:1 adult support to initiate and sustain engagement with academics at the level presented to the rest of the class. This remains true even when the work is modified (by reducing the total required amount, providing visual supports and modeling of written letters, and offering alternative activities such as online activities when he shows signs of distress), and his interests are incorporated into his learning (such as presenting words as puzzles given his love of puzzles). While Student is making progress following classroom routines, and transitioning between activities, he is not progressing with sustaining attention or learning the curriculum at the same pace as his peers. Ms. Ballou concludes that a smaller, structured program with embedded social skills coaching and instruction interwoven into the curriculum (as opposed to being provided as an intervention as it is currently), structured opportunities to practice socialization, and curriculum tailored to Student’s pace and instructional level with opportunities for multiple breaks, is necessary for meaningful progress. (Ballou VIII-156-59, 167-69, 182-84).
50. In response to Parents’ hesitancy to accept the proposed RISE placement, and to support them in making the most informed decision possible, Ms. Mannix assured Parents they did not have to agree to the proposed placement immediately and had 30 days to respond to the IEP. She offered Parents the opportunity to revisit the RISE program in November 2025, December 2025 and January 2026. Parents declined to revisit RISE. At Parents’ request, she sent them a sample schedule showing the amount of proposed inclusion time for Student (approximately 45 minutes daily at a minimum). Although not her current practice for Team Meeting Summary notes, nor required, at the end of the Team meeting summary notes for the November 5, 2025 Team meeting that she re-sent Parents with the sample schedule, Ms. Mannix also added a written clarification summary of the breakdown of minutes that Student would spend daily receiving all the proposed services in the Service Delivery Grid[17]. Additionally, the District connected Parents with a family that previously had similar questions and concerns about a substantially separate placement for their child to help Parents gain a greater understanding of the RISE program. Finally, after the Team meeting, the RISE teacher observed Student in Ms. Chirichiello’s classroom for about an hour and a half and concluded he would be an excellent fit for her program. Student seemed to connect well with her and responded well to the teaching method she used with him during that visit. (S-5; Weymer VII-39-40; Mannix VIII-38-40, 43-44, 46-47, 52, 65, 68-69).
51. Throughout the year, the District regularly communicated with Parents regarding Student’s behaviors, including inattention, elopement, crawling under desks, running into hallways, and self-soothing behaviors, as well as his difficulty accessing grade-level instruction. Ms. Chirichiello sent messages using Class Dojo and also sent homework samples with notes home. When Parents sought clarification regarding elopement, they were informed that it typically involved Student briefly leaving the classroom to explore nearby areas such as the hallway or main office, often to view preferred items (e.g., a Lion King image early in the year), before independently returning to class. (Mother VI-56-63; Chirichiello VIII-100).
52. Student engaged in self-soothing behaviors on the rug or under tables in view of staff and peers. An ABA behavior reduction program (“hands on top”) was implemented using visual supports and staff prompts, and Student sometimes self-corrected; however, he frequently resumed the behavior once adults walked away, at times for over 30 minutes. On occasion, this required removal to the nurse or additional staffing support. At the District’s recommendation, Parents discussed this behavior with their pediatrician and were advised that this is typical behavior for younger students to engage in particularly in stressful or tense situations. Parents claim they have not yet been notified about the circumstances surrounding when Student self-soothes. Student does not engage in self-soothing behavior at home. Ms. Chirichiello explained that while Student’s dysregulation was not viewed as intentional misbehavior, it significantly interfered with his access to instruction. (S-24; Mother VI-56-57, 67-68; Chirichiello VIII-100, 115-18).
53. Student entered Kindergarten with fractured skills. According to the DIBELS assessments, he could identify most letters and sounds but he had a really hard time showing those skills in the general education classroom. Although not part of any progress report, Ms. Chirichiello and Ms. Ballou confirmed that Student was provided with every accommodation on his Stay-Put IEP, albeit not every day, as each accommodation did not always work for Student each day. According to Ms. Ballou, both targeted interventions tied to specific goals and objectives in the Stay-Put IEP and general interventions beyond the IEP were used with Student. The general interventions included offering choices, redirecting behavior, and redirection attention back to tasks. Specific interventions included using a visual circle to support Student with sitting and attending morning meeting, and use of a phonics ring that contained letters and sounds for Student to reference in whole group phonics lessons. Although staff worked with Student on his academic tasks in a variety of locations, including at a small group table with his peers, on the floor, at an individual table, or in a scoop chair in the classroom, he frequently was unable to complete the work, despite substantial support (typically 8-10 reminders in a 15-minute span). They modified Student’s work, but his engagement was inconsistent, often depending on adult support and interest driven. Staff provided visual and verbal prompts, set visual timers, offered choices or first/then prompts, used visual schedules, rewards/incentives via use of a token board, small group instruction to teach new skills, frequent check-ins, visual supports for activities and behavior expectations, repeated exposure to new materials, ensured they had Student’s attention before delivering instruction in a step-by step manner, repeated and rephrased instructions, broke down tasks, provided additional wait time, and offered movement breaks.
Student also had an ABA behavioral contract. As the year progressed, incentives that had previously interested Student, such as ST Math, were no longer as effective because the ST Math program had moved beyond Student’s current math skills. To assist Student with sitting he was typically given two animals or trains to hold in his hands, as well as a weighted stuffed dog. Although this sometimes helped him remain seated, Student would rarely attend to the lesson, instead focusing on the toys. At other times, Student would leave his seat with the toys, frequently bringing them to the sink to “wash” them, even when the sink was “closed” (another strategy that was attempted to redirect Student). (S-24; Chirichiello VIII-88-89, 91,93, 95-97, 99-102, 109, 137-41; Ballou VIII-152-53, 65-67).
54. Student’s dysregulated behavior in Ms. Chirichiello’s classroom also occurred in specials. Specifically in art he often struggled and would frequently self-soothe. In gym he would run into the class and instantly knock over all the items set up for the class. In library, at the beginning of the year, he would scream and get mad and upset or run out of the library because he wanted to take out more than one book. He required significant structure and supports (e.g., restricted access to materials, puzzles at lunch, locked gates at recess) to prevent unsafe behaviors, including running from designated areas and inappropriate toileting-related incidents. When Student jumped in puddles at recess, Mother had to come to school to bring him new dry shoes. In contrast, he demonstrated improved regulation during 1:1 speech or OT sessions in smaller, structured settings. (Chirichiello VIII-98-102).
55. Student’s peer interactions were primarily parallel and largely adult-facilitated. He rarely initiated communication, required prompts to respond to peers, and demonstrated limited reciprocal interaction, typically only producing scripted responses with adult support and without sustained engagement or eye contact. (Chirichiello VIII-125-27).
56. Student’s Term 1 Kindergarten Report Card indicated he was progressing (P) in the areas of recognizing all upper- and lower-case letters, knowing all sounds, and counting objects to 30+. In all other academic and all specials content areas he was either beginning (B) or not yet demonstrating progress toward the grade level standard (N). Student’s Behavior and Social Skills indicated that he required on-going intervention to develop all skills (1) except taking care of materials and belongings and seeking help when needed which he was inconsistently demonstrating (2). (S-23; Chirichiello VIII- 129-31).
57. According to the November 26, 2025 Progress Report Student remained seated for 10 minutes with an average of 1.3 prompts, calmly accepted a denied request without yelling/crying or leaving the area 33% of the time, had met his objective for transitioning between activities within one minute of his classmates at least 80% of the time, and was inconsistently taking turns with a peer with adult support 65% of the time. Student’s Communication and Sensory Process and Motor Planning goals were noted as all having been met, and it was also noted that new objectives were proposed in a pending IEP that had yet to be signed. (P-D; S-21).
58. Student could independently request preferred items or activities but required verbal modeling to express frustration or disappointment. He showed some improvement in remaining seated during teacher-led instruction but frequently left his seat during non-preferred tasks, requiring about two redirections over 30 minutes. He was unable to consistently use self-calming strategies despite prompting and modeling and averaged 36 minutes of task avoidance despite structured visual supports and task breakdowns. He continued to require adult assistance with toileting but demonstrated independence in routines such as handwashing, unpacking, cleanup, and solitary play. Socially, Student responded to his name and greetings with one verbal prompt but often avoided sitting with peers during meals and free time, preferring solitary play. At recess, he participated in group play with support and could take up to three turns in structured games with encouragement. During specials, participation in small-group collaborative tasks occurred about 10% of the time. Overall, progress was inconsistent, with fluctuating ability to sustain skills such as attending and remaining seated across days, sometimes requiring alternative activities or movement breaks when unable to engage. (P-D; S-21; S-24; Ballou VIII, 153-54).
59. Student’s academic progress, as measured by DIBELS testing in the beginning and middle of the school year, showed mixed results. In Phoneme Segmentation Fluency, he was below goal at the start of the year and well below goal at the mid-year benchmark. For Nonsense Word Fluency – Correct Letter Sounds he was above goal at the first benchmark, but below goal mid-year. For Words Recorded Correctly and Letter Naming Fluency he was at the goal at both benchmark points, while for Word Reading Fluency he was at the goal in the beginning of the year and above the goal mid-year. Student’s composite score was above goal for the beginning of the year and at goal level at the second benchmark. (P-E).
60. Behavioral data collected during the 2025–2026 school year through January 21, 2026, tracked Student’s transitions, acceptance of denied requests, morning meeting participation, and frequency of crying/yelling, throwing objects, noncompliance, and elopement, with additional turn-taking data collected on 10 days between October 14 and November 26, 2025. Ms. Ballou noted that the data reflects periods when the ABA technician was present, during which Student generally demonstrated better outcomes. Data showed improvement in transitions beginning in early November, with near 100% success on many days, though not consistently. Crying/yelling and elopement decreased significantly by late October/ early November. However, Student showed variable performance in accepting denied requests and remaining seated at morning meeting. He frequently threw objects (1–4 times daily on most days) and engaged in regular noncompliance, which decreased somewhat in November but increased again in early December, at times exceeding 100–150 minutes per day. Turn-taking with peers occurred inconsistently, with no participation on 6 of 10 observed days. (P-E; P-H; S-25).
61. According to Ms. Ballou, while the data graph for episodes of crying and yelling shows a reduction, based upon her FBA data, personal observation, and staff reports, this was an underrepresentation of Student’s actual behaviors throughout the day particularly during times the ABA Technician was not in the room, which was when this behavior was more likely to occur. Thus, the improvement shown in this data graph reflects only the period when the ABA Technician was present, not across the entire school day. With regard to turn-taking with peers, although social coaching interventions such as modeling language, providing conversation starter questions, or engaging in a ball rolling activity with peers were provided, Student did not make significant progress and was not ready to access this communication or social skill, so data stopped being collected on this skill.
Ms. Ballou does agree, however, that Student has made progress with transitioning between activities successfully and noted that following classroom routines was an area of strength for him. Specifically, after overcoming the struggles he had separating from Mother in the morning, at the start of the year (reflected in the data graph for engaging in crying and yelling), once he was familiar with the classroom routine, the yelling and crying decreased, and his success with transitions improved, although he continues to have difficulty initiating tasks after completing a transition. Student also demonstrated relative success in appropriately responding to denied requests, which Ms. Ballou tracked behaviorally by collecting data on Student’s responses to being told he was limited to only choosing 2 animals to play with. Student initially exhibited more yelling and crying, but eventually, when faced with consistent reactions, this decreased, at least during his time with the ABA Technician. Ms. Ballou noted that all areas of progress for Student reflect the best he is able to do in his current environment with all the supports and the significant behavioral, communication and occupational therapy interventions he receives. This progress must be viewed by comparing Student to himself, although it is overall slower progress than nondisabled peers.
According to Ms. Ballou, despite the progress shown, the behavioral graphs also evidence the amount of time Student is unable to access learning. The data reflects progress on pre-school not Kindergarten objectives (the Stay-Put IEP objectives), reinforcing the widening educational gap between Student and his peers, as well as the amount of time and repetition he requires to develop a skill. She concludes that the behavioral data support Student’s need for a smaller classroom setting, individualized curriculum at his instructional level, extensive repetition and practice, and multimodal learning opportunities. (P-E; P-H; S-25; Ballou VIII-151-55, 158-62, 184).
62. In late November 2025, Mother observed Student in Ms. Chirichiello’s room. According to Mother, Student was seated at a table with peers with 1:1 ABA support and intermittently left to hug her; when told he could not go home, he accepted the explanation without difficulty. Ms. Chirichiello described the day as typical or better, noting that while Student sat with peers and attended morning meeting, he had difficulty remaining seated and did not participate. He crawled under the table, required assistance from both Mother and Ms. Chirichiello to return, and, despite use of a timer, he became upset, eventually yelling. During this episode, Student briefly made contact with Ms. Chirichiello with his elbow, and Mother redirected him. He ultimately returned to his seat. Afterward, Ms. Chirichiello messaged Mother via Class Dojo that the observation was “kind of a lot to see today,” and Mother responded positively, stating she thought it was a good observation, was happy Student was in Ms. Chirichiello’s class and felt he was having a positive experience. (Mother VI-62-63, 69; Chirichiello VIII-112-14, 146).
63. During Mother’s classroom observation she noticed Student had an individual desk and was concerned with this. Ms. Chirichiello introduced the seating in late September/early October after observing that Student frequently left the group table and gravitated toward this empty table where he appeared calmer and more regulated. Student eventually self-adopted the routine of independently sitting at this table upon entering class and then began to complete modified morning work there with greater success, which also facilitated transitions to morning meeting. Principal Weymer supported this as an appropriate instructional accommodation for Student to improve his access to learning as it provided a structured, calming workspace for him. When at the individual desk, Student received 1:1 support from staff, including direct instruction during phonics activities. The use of an individual desk was consistent with Student’s Stay-Put IEP accommodations, specifically that he be provided with flexible seating when appropriate (i.e., sitting to the side or behind large groups, sit at individual table during snack or lunchtime), due to his fluctuating tolerance at times of being in close proximity to students. (S-4; Weymer VII-60-61, 64, 70-71, 75-76; Chirichiello VIII-118-20, 137).
64. On December 5, 2025, Mother and her friend who participated via speakerphone, agreed to meet with Ms. Mannix and Ms. Chirichiello to review the proposed 25-26 IEP. Mother also had a friend participate by speakerphone. Mother requested that a sentence on the N1 form regarding the family being abroad be reworded. She also asked to delete the last sentence of the second paragraph under Parent Concerns. Ms. Mannix agreed to these requests and also offered to support Parents in obtaining an independent evaluation if they continued to disagree with the BCH evaluation. (S-24; Mannix VIII-45-47).
65. At the December 5, 2025 meeting Mother also informed Ms. Chirichiello that she was unhappy with Student using the individual desk to complete his work as she felt it was secluding Student. Ms. Chirichiello responded by explaining that this was an offered workspace/quiet table that Student chose to access on his own and was the only place where he successfully completed work. Its use regulated Student during morning work and transitioning to morning meeting. Ms. Chirichiello advised Mother that when Student was at the group table, he often seemed overwhelmed and would get up and go to the quiet table. However, Mother insisted that the table be removed and not offered to Student. (S-24; Chirichiello VIII-120-21).
66. Starting on December 5, 2025, Ms. Chirichiello began keeping a Google Sheet with her notes documenting Student’s day. She shared this with Parents in response to their school records request in March of 2026. The notes reflect that after removing the quiet table Student’s behaviors began to substantially increase, and became more intense, destructive and unsafe. He also began to engage in more regular and longer periods of self-soothing and laying on the floor. According to Ms. Chirichiello, and as documented in her notes, after removing the quiet table, Student started running around the room, throwing pencils and knocking over chairs. He also frequently began throwing more dangerous items, such as pencils, his Chromebook (which, despite previously enjoying it, he no longer wanted to use when required to sit at a table with his peers), his whiteboard, and the scoop chair. Once, he hit another student with the scoop chair from behind. He also began taking toys from other students during indoor recess, which had not happened before. Rather than sit at the table with his peers, Student would now almost always complete any work on the floor. Sometimes he would sit on the floor where the quiet table had been located. (S-24; Chirichiello VIII-121-22142-44).
67. On December 17, 2025, Ms. Mannix, Principal Weymer and Mother met again with regard to the proposed IEP. Principal Weymer stressed that the Team’s goal was for Student to be fully included but explained that to do that he now requires a smaller classroom environment now in a setting where he could be successful so that he can later transition back to the larger setting once he had received the necessary interventions he currently requires. (Mannix VIII-51-52).
68. In December 2025, or early January 2026, Mother addressed her concerns about Student’s avoidant behavior towards Ms. Chirichiello and his increasing stress at school directly with Ms. Chirichiello. She inquired if there were other supports or accommodations available, including if Student could be moved to the other Kindergarten classroom. According to Mother, Ms. Chirichiello informed her that transferring classrooms was not an option and did not share this request with Principal Weymer. According to the notes Ms. Chirichiello kept, this conversation occurred on January 7, 2026, at dismissal, in response to Ms. Chirichiello advising Mother about Student throwing his Chromebook. Mother initially expressed concern that Student no longer enjoyed using his Chromebook, despite previously liking ST Math, and believed something may have changed. Ms. Chirichiello responded that the only recent adjustment was the removal of the quiet table, which Mother maintained was overly isolating, despite reassurance that Student consistently chose to use it. Mother stated she preferred Student to be seated with peers, though she was not focused on whether work was being completed, or concerned if he completed work on the floor. She expressed that Ms. Chirichiello should further encourage seated participation and suggested that Student may need a different classroom. Ms. Chirichiello offered to connect Mother with Principal Weymer to discuss concerns, but Mother declined and left. (S-24; Mother VI-42; Weymer VII-61-62).
69. Parents contend that there is video evidence of Student trying to run away from Ms. Chirichiello when he entered the school building on at least two days in January 2026, including on January 15 and January 20, 2026. (P-J; P-K; Mother VI-42-43).
70. On January 15, 2026, upon entering he walked between two cloth banners erected in the entrance foyer, to avoid another Student walking across his path. According to the video of Student entering school, a staff member (whom Principal Weymer identified as the school secretary) noticed this and followed Student down the hall to inform him he could not walk between the banners for safety reasons. She found Student with Ms. Chirichiello and they all returned together to the entrance foyer whereupon, Ms. Chirichiello walked back outside with Student and proceeded to enter the school building with him while verbally explaining, visually demonstrating and physically practicing the proper entrance routine. During this time, Ms. Chirichiello is observed to have ensured she had Student’s visual attention while speaking with him, once touching his face so he turned his head to look at her, and guiding him verbally and visually through all the steps associated with the entrance routine. Eventually Student’s ABA Technician joined them and they all began to walk back to the classroom. Ms. Chirichiello stopped to speak with the staff member. At no time was Student observed to have tried to run from Ms. Chirichiello, although she did initially have to direct him outside the school as he seemed distracted by other students in the area when he first returned to the entrance foyer. Otherwise, he stayed next to Ms. Chirichiello throughout her instructions, held her hand on the way out of the building, and once reached towards her after reentering. (P-J; Weymer VII-56-57).
71. On January 20, 2026, Student entered school at a fast pace, slipped, and fell backwards. According to the video of this incident, at the time Student fell, Ms. Chirichiello was coming down from the second floor and immediately went to assist Student. There was a warning sign in the area where Student fell indicating the floor was wet. Student attempted to stand up, but fell over again, and then reached out to Ms. Chirichiello to steady himself as she helped him up, and although Mother had entered the building as this happened, and Student was facing her, he Student did not seem to notice her or reach for her. Ms. Chirichiello later messaged mother to indicate that she spoke with the BCBA with regarding addressing Student’s appropriate behaviors during arrival and throughout the day, and had
“made a plan to have someone wait in the main lobby for [Student] so they can guide him to class safely and remind him of the rules and expectations when entering the building if need be. Thank you for your continued partnership. Please let me know if you would like to discuss this further.” (P-I; P-J).
72. On January 21, 2026, when Mother and Student arrived at school, he was met by his ABA Technician, consistent with the plan Ms. Chirichiello had messaged to Mother. Principal Weymer was also aware of this plan to assist Student. According to Mother, the ABA Technician indicated that she had received an email to meet Student as he entered the building. However, Mother was never provided with a copy of this communication despite requesting it several times in several different ways. (P-I; P-J; Mother VI-78-79; Weymer VII-44-45).
73. Also on January 21, 2026, Mother met with Principal Weymer and Ms. Ballou to express her concerns with what occurred the previous day, the presence of the ABA Technician that morning when Student entered the building, and Student’s discomfort with Ms. Chirichiello. She shared her belief that Student had been increasingly distressed at school and did not want to be around Ms. Chirichiello. According to Mother, Student had noticed Ms. Chirichiello coming down the stairs as he entered the building the day before and was trying to run away from her. Mother asked that Student be moved to the other Kindergarten classroom. Parents believe the District ignored this request or refused to honor it, because, although feasible, the District was concerned that such a move would cause Student to make better progress than he was making in Ms. Chirichiello’s class. Principal Weymer recalls informing Mother he would not agree to transfer classrooms as requested, and instead discussed with her the Team’s proposal to move Student to the RISE classroom. Parents subsequently dismissed Student at approximately 9:00 a.m., which seemed to dysregulate and confuse him. (P-O; S-24; Mother VI-43; Weymer VII-43-44; Chirichiello VIII-107; Father VIII-205).
74. The January 21, 2026 meeting was the first time Principal Weymer became aware of any concern from Parents regarding Ms. Chirichiello, and he had not previously received any complaints about her. Based on prior communications, he understood Mother to be satisfied with Student’s placement and teacher[18]. Principal Weymer testified that he takes all parent concerns seriously and determines whether to conduct an informal or formal investigation depending on severity. In this case, he addressed the concern informally through a conversation with Ms. Chirichiello, considering the circumstances of the prior day, the absence of prior complaints, and her established performance as an educator. He did not document the informal inquiry and found no information suggesting that further action was necessary. He further testified that he observed no indications that Student was anxious or uncomfortable with Ms. Chirichiello; rather, he observed Student arriving happily to class. He described Ms. Chirichiello as consistently demonstrating “kindness, compassion, empathy, and care” and noted that Student was initially placed in her classroom because of her strong professional reputation. He added that she routinely went above and beyond to support Student’s learning in her nurturing classroom. (Weymer VII-45, 59-60, 85-89; Mannix VIII 60-61).
75. At Parents’ request Principal Weymer observed the videos of January 15 and January 20, 2026, as well as video of Student entering school on many other school days in January. Principal Weymer opined that the videos show that overall, Student entered school happily, walking towards his classroom, albeit not always following a safe path, and sometimes at a speed that was a bit faster than normal walking pace. Student never once turned around and attempted to leave the building. Principal Weymer did not observe Student to be attempting to run from his teacher on January 20, or to avoid her before or after he slipped and fell on a marked wet area of the floor. Moreover, after being helped up by Ms. Chirichiello, Student proceeded to class without incident. With respect to January 15, Principal Weymer explained that he observed Ms. Chirichiello, upon learning that Student had unsafely cut through the banners to utilize the teachable moment to explicitly teach Student step-by-step how to safely enter the building. (P-J; P-K; Weymer VII-49-59).
76. Student has not attended school since January 21, 2026. Father claims he is unable to attend school due to his fear, although Parents wants Student to return to “the school he misses”. Parents have communicated with school staff since then, reiterating their request that Student be transferred to a different general education Kindergarten classroom as an accommodation. Parents have also repeatedly requested evidence of every strategy, support, and accommodation attempted to allow Student to access the general education curriculum in the least restrictive general education classroom. The District has consistently declined Parents’ transfer requests, instead offering Student to return to Ms. Chirichiello’s stay-put classroom or the proposed RISE placement. According to Ms. Mannix, transfers between general education classrooms are neither standard practice nor a decision of the IEP Team. Further the transfer requested by Parents would not have addressed Student’s needs for a smaller individualized setting. Ms. Mannix also believes such a transfer could actually cause Student to regress, as it would require him to learn from a new teacher with new expectations and to be in a classroom with new classmates, some of whom had otherwise been strategically placed in the other classroom. She agrees that Student requires a new teacher, but that it be a new special education teacher not a new general education teacher. (P-O; Mother VI-44; Mannix VIII-56-60; Father VIII-200-01, 205-06).
77. Student’s Term 2 Report Card reflects the same progress ratings for all academic and specials as well as the same behavior/social skills performance indicators as his Term 1 Report Card. Specifically, he received a P (progressing) in only three academic areas, but in all other areas (including all specials) he received a B (beginning) or N (not yet demonstrating progress toward the grade level standard), and he received a 1 (indicating that he required on-going intervention to develop the skill) in all areas of behavior/social skills except for the same two areas where he previously received a 2 (inconsistently developing). Student did not receive any M’s (consistently and independently demonstrating mastery of the grade-level standard), the highest possible academic grade. Nor did he receive either of the two higher behavior/social skills performance indicators of 3 (usually demonstrating a skill) or 4 (consistently demonstrating a skill. All B grades reflect the significant prompts, redirections and supports Student received to be able to demonstrate the skill. According to Ms. Chirichiello, while a B in Term 1 is not concerning, when the grade remains the same in Term 2, she is concerned, as it does not show progress. Generally, students who demonstrate effective progress have Bs and Ps for Term 1, with more P’s, fewer B’s, and a few M’s in Term 2. Any N’s for any Term indicates no progress on that skill. For the behavior/social skills performance indicators students making effective progress would typically have 3s in Term 1 and 3s and 4s in Term 2. She also noted that despite Student’s consistent letter and sound knowledge, since December, the class has been working on writing up to eight-word sentences using punctuation, spacing and capital letters; all skills Student is not close to being able to perform. (S-23; Chirichiello VIII-129-33).
78. As a result of Student’s continued absences, the District has been required to pursue failure to send legal procedures against Parents in the Juvenile Court, as Student is now 7 years old, and of mandatory school attendance age. The District initially pursued other options, including providing multiple grace periods, sending Parents multiple letters from the Assistant Principal explaining the impact of the absences and that Student could and should attend school pending resolution of the adult dispute and filing with the Department of Children and Families (DCF) (which was screened out due to the District’s not having pursued a failure to send action). It is Ms. Mannix’s understanding that Parents were arraigned on April 16, 2026, and informed that this could be considered a criminal offense. (Weymer VII-68; Mannix VIII-48-50).
79. On March 31, 2026, Parents rejected the 25-26 IEP and refused the RISE placement. (S-1, Mother VI-46).
80. Parents contend that the version of the 25-26 IEP initially sent to them to sign in November 2025, is substantively different than the version of the 25-26 IEP that they received from the school after their March 2026 public records request for a copy of Student’s school record. Specifically, Mother explained that the last sentence of the “Student and Parent Concerns” section ( “[w]hen visiting the playground after school or on weekends, he does not prefer being at the playground when other peers are present”) was not in the version initially sent to them to sign in November 2025, but is in the public records version sent to them in 2026. This sentence is also not in the District’s submission of this exhibit.
According to Ms. Mannix, this sentence was the contested sentence initially proposed for inclusion in the 25-26 IEP that she agreed to amend at Mother’s request during their December 5, 2025 meeting. The original version of the proposed 25-26 IEP is still in Student’s student record. Ms. Mannix waited to remove this sentence until after a follow-up meeting on December 17, 2025, with Mother and Principal Weymer, in case further changes were requested. As no other changes were requested, on January 6, 2026, Ms. Mannix emailed the special education office to send the updated version of the IEP to Parents. The revised version is now the version saved in the District’s special education database (eSped) and would be the version printed if a copy of the IEP were now requested (such as for inclusion as an exhibit at hearing). Ultimately, Parents signed the revised IEP sent to them in January 2026, but they were sent both versions. (P-B; P-C; S-1; Mother VI-71-73; Mannix VIII-76-78).
81. The District stipulated that there are not any other student records that provide further data and information regarding services and supports provided to Student that have not already been provided to Parents. Parents believe that the District has failed to provide sufficient documentation to show that all supports and interventions have been tried in the general education classroom before deciding to move to a more restrictive placement or that less restrictive options were tried and found insufficient. According to Ms. Ballou and Ms. Chirichiello, they met with Mother at the start of the year and offered to provide a home-school communication log but Mother declined at that time, which Ms. Ballou considers to be a missed opportunity. (P-O; VIII-195; Father, VIII-201-02; Ballou VIII-162-64).
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
1. Free Appropriate Public Education in the Least Restrictive Environment
The right to a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for all students with a disability is guaranteed by both federal and state law[19]. 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[20].” To constitute a FAPE, a student’s education program must be “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances[21].” The examination of effective progress shall be made in the context of the educational potential of the student[22]. In Endrew F., the United States Supreme Court held that 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[23]…. If that is not a reasonable prospect for a child, his IEP need not aim for grade-level advancement. But his educational program must be appropriately ambitious in light of his circumstances, just as advancement from grade to grade is appropriately ambitious for most children in the regular classroom. The goals may differ, but every child should have the chance to meet challenging objectives[24].
The services that comprise a FAPE must be provided in the "least restrictive environment[25]” or LRE. Massachusetts special education laws define the “least restrictive environment” to mean the,
… educational placement that assures that, to the maximum extent appropriate, students with disabilities … are educated with students who are not disabled, and that special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of students with disabilities from the general education environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the student’s disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily[26].
Provided the proposed educational program in an IEP is “reasonably calculated” to deliver “educational benefits”, “to enable the child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances” school districts have met their IDEA obligation with respect to an IEP[27].
An IEP must be “custom tailored” and “individually designed” to be “reasonably calculated to confer a meaningful educational benefit” to a student[28]. “… [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”[29]. 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”[30]. 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[31]”, 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[32].
2. Burden of Persuasion.
In a special education due process proceeding, the burden of proof is on the moving party.[33] If the evidence is closely balanced, the moving party will not prevail.[34] Here, Parents carry the burden of proof on the first issue (inclusive of parts (a) through (d)), while the District carries the burden of proof on the second issue (i.e., whether the IEP proposed in November 2025, is reasonably calculated to provide Student with a FAPE).
DISCUSSION:[35]
Student’s eligibility for special education is not disputed in this matter. Although Parents question Student’s ASD diagnosis, their primary disputes with the District concern the appropriateness of Student’s placement, the District’s handling and timing of his three-year reevaluation, and the District’s response to both their transfer request and their concerns regarding Student’s classroom teacher. Upon consideration of the documentary and testimonial evidence presented by the Parties, the applicable law, and the Parties’ arguments, I conclude that Parents have not met their burden to show that the District denied Student a FAPE. I further find that the 25-26 IEP calling for Student’s placement in the substantially separate RISE program, with slight modifications to ensure ongoing home and school communication and to fully document the flexibility with which Student’s inclusion opportunities can be increased, is reasonably calculated to provide him with meaningful educational benefit in the least restrictive environment in light of his circumstances.
At the outset, I address Parents’ overall contention that all lesser restrictive options were not fully considered, tried or supported, before the Team proposed moving Student to the more restrictive RISE program. The evidence, however, overwhelmingly demonstrates the contrary. The record is replete with documentation regarding the increasingly greater individualized supports, accommodations and modifications that the District has provided to Student since he first began pre-school to address the behavioral dysregulation and inattention challenges that have impeded his access to the general education curriculum. Parents’ have further failed to mitigate their own role in limiting or, at times, prohibiting Student from receiving all proposed supports and services. For instance, despite Parents’ ongoing contention that they have not been provided with sufficient written documentation, Mother declined the District’s offer to use a home-school communication log this school year. This log would have provided Parents with the documentation they claim to be missing, including information about Student’s daily performance, the interventions being used with him, and answers to questions that arose throughout the year. Additionally, Parents failed to respond in a timely manner and eventually wholly rejected the 25-26 IEP, which included all new goals and objectives, despite their primary disagreement being limited to the placement proposal. Without parental acceptance of new goals and objectives, only Student’s accepted pre-school goals could be addressed and reported on by the District. The District was unable to address or report on Kindergarten-level skills.
Mother also insisted on discontinuing Student’s use of the quiet table, which the record reflects was an accommodation and support that enabled Student to regulate and calm, thereby increasing his availability and access to learning. The behavioral data charts, Ms. Chirichiello’s Google Sheet notes, and the testimony of Ms. Chirichiello and Ms. Ballou consistently demonstrated that when the quiet table was discontinued at Mother’s direction, Student’s behavioral dysregulation increased in intensity and duration. While I appreciate Parents’ initial concerns that the quiet table was inappropriately isolating Student, the District continually communicated with Mother and her support team (a friend and Student’s pediatrician) to explain that this was not the case. Ms. Chirichiello, Principal Weymer and Ms. Ballou credibly and clearly explained that Student self-selected the quiet table location and did not understand its discontinuation. Its use was also consistent with the accommodations in Student’s Stay-Put IEP and there is no indication that it was ever used punitively or restrictively. I agree with Principal Weymer that the quiet table was an appropriate instructional accommodation for Student, and the behavioral data and testimony from Ms. Ballou and Ms. Chirichiello indicate that, when used, it improved Student’s access to the general education curriculum. It also served to support the type of learning environment that Student requires to make effective progress.
Most concerningly, however, since January 21, 2026, Parents have not returned Student to school, despite the District’s continued outreach and assurance that Student is welcome to return to his stay-put placement in Ms. Chirichiello’s classroom or to the proposed placement in the RISE program at any time. While Parents have the right to reject placements proposed by the Team, the IDEA provides for extensive dispute resolution options that parents and schools can access to resolve their disagreements, and further provides that during the pendency of such disputes, a student can remain in the then-current educational placement, unless the Parent and District agree otherwise[36]. At no time does the IDEA contemplate a student not attending school pending resolution of disputes, contrary to what has, concerningly, occurred in the instant matter.
Father testified that Parents want Student to return to school and that Student misses school. However, despite ongoing communication with the District since January 21, 2026, and actively pursuing available dispute resolution options, Parents have refused to return Student to school, insisting, instead, that he be transferred to another general education classroom and that they be provided with allegedly missing documentation, relating to all supports provided to Student and Student’s responses thereto.
Substantial evidence was presented from a variety of service providers across both pre-school and Kindergarten as to the services, supports, interventions and accommodations that Student received, and his responses to them. This evidence includes the behavioral data collected for the FBA and overall between September 2025 and January 21, 2026, as well as all evaluations performed during pre-school and in the fall of 2025[37], which contain consistent observational data by multiple service providers and teachers, consistent recommendations by experts for accommodations and supports, and consistent standardized testing results, all of which were noted to be impacted by the same behavioral dysregulations and attention challenges. Additionally, the observational data obtained for the FBA, the Psychological Assessment and the Occupational Therapy Assessment, as well as the corroborating testimony of Ms. Mannix, Principal Weymer, Ms. O’Leary with respect to Student’s presentation as observed when they were in his classroom, invariably reflect Student’s inability to access the general education curriculum, even when substantially modified, without being provided: substantial 1:1 adult prompting (first/then prompts and identifying motivators to earn breaks) across multiple settings (table, desk, floor, and various areas of the classroom); step-by-step directions; and the use of accommodations (e.g., timer, visual and sensory supports, and movement breaks). It is clear from the record that Student cannot access the curriculum and instruction in the same manner and at the same pace as his classmates as he cannot successfully sit, attend and participate in whole group instruction, or independently complete academic work at small group tables within the scheduled work time, without exhibiting interfering behavioral dysregulation.
Academically, on limited occasions and with significant individualized adult scaffolding the accommodations and supports provided to Student enabled him to complete a task for a few minutes. However, the work so completed did not effectively advance his pre-existing academic skills, despite the greater relative progress he made toward his pre-school goals of transitioning between activities and following classroom routines. The progress reports, report cards, behavioral data and assessments, including the standardized testing and Student’s DIBELs scores, reflect that since pre-school, Student has possessed foundational pre-reading, writing and math skills, strong gross motor skills, adequate daily living skills (except for toileting which continues to require regular support), and functional fine motor abilities with respect to holding writing utensils, cutting, gluing and drawing lines and simple figures. Student has made limited, inconsistent growth in these areas over time[38]. His performance is currently below the grade level standards required for the end of Kindergarten. Moreover, the growth that Student has made, has occurred only after substantial repetition and at a significantly slower pace than is expected and appropriate for grade-level Kindergarten students.
The documents and testimony further indicate that Student is not making social or emotional progress in his current setting. When faced with increased demands and expectations that have begun to exceed Student’s existing foundational skills in a large classroom environment, the duration, form and intensity of his behaviors have correspondingly increased, thereby widening the gap between Student and his grade-level peers. Similarly, it is clear from the record that socially, Student has significant struggles engaging with peers, even with highly facilitated adult support, that to date he has only been able to participate in parallel play as opposed to collaborative play, and that he has ongoing challenges and inconsistent performance on turn-taking tasks. Ms. Ballou, the only witness to have worked with Student every year since he began to attend school in the District, credibly explained that Student’s lack of progress and extensive social struggles indicate the need for a smaller, structured program with embedded social skills coaching and instruction interwoven into the curriculum (this as opposed to the current model where social instruction is provided as an intervention only). The evidence, therefore, strongly supports the conclusion that, absent a change to Student’s educational environment, Student will not make effective progress.
Throughout Student’s life, Parents have been hesitant and slow in accepting additional supports for him. They declined the initial offer of EI services (albeit providing an understandable explanation at that time, that is, that two languages were spoken in the home). They also declined the District’s initial proposal to evaluate Student for eligibility for special education, indicating they wanted to provide Student with a transition period in pre-school before pursuing an evaluation. (They did, however, accept the District’s second evaluation proposal, Student’s initial IEP, amendments and the subsequent Stay-Put IEP.) Further, Parents have not wholly accepted the diagnosis and recommendations from the privately obtained BCH evaluation[39].
In light of the above, although Parents clearly love and strongly advocate for Student, and were genuine and heartfelt in their arguments, the record neither supports a finding that the District failed to exhaust all available supports to Student in a lesser restrictive setting[40], nor that it failed to provide them with information regarding the numerous supports, accommodations and interventions provided to Student over the years and his responses thereto.
From this perspective, I address the four claims that Parents raised with respect to denial of a FAPE. Based upon the entirety of the record, I conclude that Parents have failed to meet their burden to prove that the District has denied Student a FAPE on all said claims. My reasoning follows.
Parents first claim that Student was denied a FAPE when the District refused their request to transfer him to another Kindergarten general education classroom. They contend that remaining in Ms. Chirichiello’s classroom was causing Student emotional distress and fear. Although the Parties do not dispute that Student was emotionally distressed in Ms. Chirichiello’s classroom, they disagree as to the source of this distress. While I do not doubt that Parents came to sincerely believe this distress was rooted in Student being in fear of Ms. Chirichiello, there is no evidence in the record to support this claim. Parents point to the videos from January 15 and 20, 2026, and also assert that Student was reported to have “good days” on days Ms. Chirichiello was absent, as proof of Student’s fear of Ms. Chirichiello. However, the evidence is to the contrary. According to the January 20, 2026, video, when Ms. Chirichiello assisted Student after he fell and unsuccessfully tried to stand back up on his own, he did not try to run away, but rather leaned into her, paused while she removed an open water bottle from his backpack, and then proceeded towards class. At no time did Student acknowledge Mother who had arrived from the direction he was facing when he initially tried to stand up, which he would presumably have done if he had been afraid. Similarly, Student did not display fear-based behaviors on January 15, 2026, when Ms. Chirichiello was teaching him the safe school entry process. Throughout the reteaching process, Student either held Ms. Chirichiello’s hand or stood right beside her. While Ms. Chirichiello needed to redirect Student during this lesson, this occurred when Student was distracted by something in the entryway [41]. Moreover, all witnesses who observed Student with Ms. Chirichiello, including Ms. Mannix, Principal Weymer, Ms. Ballou and Ms. Belibasakis, testified to the love, care and support that Ms. Chirichiello provided to Student, and his responsive affection towards her, including giving her hugs and seeking assistance by touching her arm. Further, after Mother’s November 2025 observation, she informed Ms. Chirichiello and Ms. Mannix in writing that she was happy that Student was in Ms. Chirichiello’s class. Finally, I credit Ms. Mannix’s explanation that Student’s reported “better days” when Ms. Chirichiello was absent was due to reduced demands by the substitute teacher.
To the extent Student was distressed around Ms. Chirichiello, the evidence demonstrates that it was due to the grade level tasks, demands and expectations she was required to continue to present to him, as his general education teacher, which Student was incapable of accessing independently, and often could not access even with substantial adult support. Thus, I conclude that the primary source of Student’s distress in Ms. Chirichiello’s classroom related to the demands of engaging and learning in the larger group environment, not to Ms. Chirichiello, herself.
Parents next contend that Student was denied a FAPE when he was evaluated in the fall of 2025 at a time that he was emotionally dysregulated and unable to access learning. It is clear, and the District does not dispute, that Student’s emotional dysregulation impeded the accuracy of many aspects of his re-evaluation. In fact, the evaluators cautioned that the testing results likely underrepresent Student’s skills and abilities. Despite providing him with atypical supports during testing, Student was unable to attend to and complete all testing. However, there is no evidence to suggest that testing Student at a different time would have allowed for different results.
Although Parents consented to the District’s proposal to expedite Student’s three-year reevaluation, Mother explained that she was reluctant to do so, as she wanted to allow Student time to reintegrate in a school setting (after having been abroad for a year) before being assessed. However, the comprehensive testing, which took place over six school weeks (between September 10, 2025, and October 21, 2025), reflects behavioral and observational data that is also consistent with recommendations similar to Student’s pre-school evaluations. Moreover, by November 5, 2025, when the Team convened to review the evaluation results, school had been in session for two full months. This was more than a sufficient adjustment period for Student to reacclimate to an educational environment and demonstrate his current skills, abilities and needs. Thus, I conclude that the three-year reevaluation was not reflective of Student’s transitioning status, premature, or conducted at a time wherein Student was demonstrating unusual or atypical behavioral dysregulation.
Parents’ third contention is that the District denied Student a FAPE by failing to investigate or respond to documented safety concerns. The only concern related to this claim (raised during an in-person meeting between Mother, Principal Weymer and Ms. Ballou on January 21, 2026, rather than in writing) pertain to Student’s alleged discomfort with Ms. Chirichiello, and Parents’ corresponding request for Student to be transferred to another general education Kindergarten class. As already found above, Student’s discomfort in Ms. Chirichiello’s class was based on the classroom environment, not Ms. Chirichiello herself. Moreover, I find that Principal Weymer’s actions in response to Mother’s complaint were appropriate. Principal Weymer credibly testified to his overall practice upon receiving parent complaints, which consists of either formal or informal investigations. He provided cogent and well-supported reasons for his actions with respect to Mother’s complaint, comprising conducting an informal investigation, which did not reveal anything that justified taking additional steps. While he acknowledged that he did not document this informal investigation, there was no obligation to do so, nor does the record reflect that it was warranted[42]. Thus, while Parents may not have liked or agreed with the District’s response to their concerns, I conclude that there is nothing to indicate that the District has failed to address or respond to them.
Finally, Parents claim that the District failed to provide Student with a FAPE by attempting to move him to a substantially separate placement without their agreement. Parents contend that Student’s placement at RISE was predetermined, citing the PL3 in the Amended 24-25 IEP, and a sentence discrepancy between the versions of the 25-26 IEP that were sent to Parents and produced for Hearing. Parents’ confusion at seeing the PL3 document for the first time in March 2026 in Student’s student record, is understandable. However, the District, particularly Ms. Tucker and Ms. Mannix who oversee the creation of PL3s, credibly explained its creation and existence. According to these witnesses, the PL3 is an internal (as noted on the form itself) computer-generated document, wholly derived from information determined by the Team and added to an IEP’s service delivery grid. It determines a level of service need for students used for internal coding purposes, not, contrary to Parents’ argument, to establish a disability level. The determinations on the form are formula-driven and based on Team discussions, with the formula clearly specified on the form. However, as this form contains information specific to Student, although used internally (and thus not provided to families with proposed IEPs), it meets the definition of a student record, and, thus, must be maintained accordingly[43]. There was no evidence presented to support Parents’ claims that the District developed this form unilaterally outside the Team process, that it improperly established a level of ASD for Student, or that it otherwise improperly predetermined Student’s placement.
With respect to the discrepancies between the 25-26 IEP, Parents contend these variances indicate that District made changes to this IEP without their input. Ms. Mannix clearly explained that the revision was based on Mother’s request made during their meeting with Ms. Chirichiello on December 5, 2025, to delete a sentence from the Parent Concerns section of the IEP that had been included in the initial version Parents were sent. Her testimony was unrefuted. Although Mother flagged the discrepancy during her testimony, she did not provide any information as to how this deletion occurred or acknowledge or advise that it was something she requested. Father, despite testifying after Ms. Mannix and thus being aware of the District’s explanation for this revision, did not even mention the revision. As such, I do not find Parents claims relating to the discrepant versions of the 25-26 IEP to indicate that the District improperly developed this IEP without parental input and participation.
Further, despite maintaining the appropriateness of its RISE placement proposal, the District has not implemented this placement for Student in contravention of Parents’ rejection. Rather, the District has supported Parents’ hesitancies and attempted to assist them in various ways to make a fully informed decision. The record reflects the District’s understanding of the importance of collaborative and communicative engagement with families in maintaining successful family partnerships to deliver FAPE to students. To that end, I find, contrary to Parents’ claim, that the District has gone above and beyond to work with them throughout Student’s last two academic years to provide multiple information gathering opportunities from a variety of sources, so that they can be fully informed regarding Student’s needs, and the proposed placement. In addition to holding multiple meetings with a variety of staff, the District provided Parents with several opportunities to visit RISE, had the RISE teacher attend Team meetings and visit and observe Student, provided Parents with additional written information and schedules explaining the RISE program and its inclusion opportunities, connected Parents with a family that previously had similar hesitancies, and even agreed to support parental pursuit of an independent educational evaluation given Parents’ continued resistance to the BCH diagnosis. Thus, I conclude that there is no evidence to support Parents’ claim that the District has attempted to move Student to a substantially separate placement without parental agreement.
I now turn to the District’s request that I find that the 25-26 IEP is reasonably calculated to provide Student with a FAPE. It was clear throughout the Hearing that District staff consist of caring, student-centered, knowledgeable educators with a strong understanding and commitment to supporting students’ needs to enable them to learn and access their education in the least restrictive environment. As I explained above, the least restrictive environment for Student is not currently the general education classroom. The evidence formidably supports his need for a smaller, structured, specialized learning environment and attendant services. Ms. Belibasakis, Ms. Mannix, Ms. Chirichiello and Ms. Ballou provided thoughtful and credible testimony, based upon evaluative, observational and behavioral evidence in the record, to explain why each of them individually supported the need for Student to be educated in the RISE program. Parents presented no expert evidence to the contrary. The 25-26 IEP offers Student precisely that– a small, structured setting in tandem with as many inclusive educational opportunities as appropriate. I therefore find that the District’s proposed IEP, with slight modifications delineated infra, is reasonably calculated to provide Student with a FAPE.
First, as the instant dispute between the Parties in this matter clearly demonstrates, it is essential that a daily home/school communication log be provided to Parents. While Parents are not required to input information in the log, they should receive regularly documented information with respect to Student’s performance and progress academically, socially, emotionally, and behaviorally, as well as the services, supports, accommodations and interventions he receives. Such a log may assist in addressing and resolving future disputes that may arise between the Parties.
Further, the summary of the integration process used in the RISE program that Ms. Mannix placed between asterisks in the Team Meeting Summary she re-sent to Parents on November 5, 2025 (Asterisk Statement[44]) is not in fact included in the additional information section of the 25-26 IEP. The Asterisk Statement, which provides for opportunities in the inclusion classroom to be increased fluidly based on the recommendations of Student’s service providers, addresses the issue of when Student will be ready to increase time spent in a less restrictive larger classroom setting and, as such, is an essential component of FAPE for Student. Said Statement, therefore, must be included in Student’s IEP.
I thus conclude that the 25-26 IEP, once amended to include a daily communication log between home and school and the Asterisk Statement is reasonably calculated to provide Student with a FAPE[45].
ORDER:
Parents have not met their burden to show that the District denied Student a FAPE. With the addition of a daily communication log between home and school, and inclusion of the Asterisk Statement, the IEP proposed in November 2025 is reasonably calculated to provide Student with a FAPE.
Respectfully submitted,
By the Hearing Officer,
/s/ Marguerite M. Mitchell
Marguerite M. Mitchell
June 10, 2026
Footnotes
[1] This was not an issue raised in the Hearing Request, but at the hearing the District asked that it be included as a counterclaim consistent with its request in the District’s Response to the Hearing Request.
[2] 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, are not included if not needed to resolve said issues.
[3] At the time of observation, Student demonstrated largely self-directed behavior with emerging parallel and solitary play, frequent noncompliance, and occasional tantrums, though he was responsive to redirection. He engaged in behaviors such as spinning on the floor, wandering the classroom, and ignoring repeated directions to join group instruction, instead remaining apart from peers until redirected. Even when seated with the group, he lay across the table and required intensive prompting, repetition, and 1:1 hand-over-hand support to briefly engage in academic tasks, often disregarding verbal and visual prompts. (S-22).
[4] The Speech services were noted to be delivered in a 3:1 treatment model with 3 weeks of direct services and 1 week of indirect services reflected in the A-Grid as consultation.
[5] The evaluator noted that Student had challenges joining the group, preferring to sit apart but was able to listen to stories from this space. He engaged in parallel play but not cooperative play. He significantly struggled with transitioning from a preferred activity. (S-20).
[6] Mother repeatedly stated that the diagnosis was given when Student was five, but on March 12, 2025, Student was 4.10 years old, and he had been on the waitlist since prior to December 14, 2021. (P-B; S-18).
[7] The EI evaluation found that “[Student] … demonstrate[ed] age-appropriate skills in all domains except for his language and personal/social skills. [Student] can be self-directed in his play which appears to be impacting both those domains….” (emphasis added). (P-B).
[8] The District also removed the Additional Information statement about meeting in the Spring to discuss Student’s transition to Kindergarten.
[9] Denise Mannix is the Special Education Coordinator at Student’s current elementary school. She has held this position for the past three years and holds a bachelor’s and master’s degree in special education. She is a certified special education administrator and has worked as a special education and general education teacher in grades one through seven. (Mannix VIII-31-32).
[10] According to these instructions, “these criteria are provided for [school staff] convenience. If the result of applying these criteria does not satisfactorily reflect the student’s Level of Need, use professional judgement” (emphasis in original).
[11] The Row 3 boxes checked were that the primary setting was “out of general education classroom”; that the service provider was “special educators and related service providers”; and that the percent of program time receiving special education services was “over 75% of program time”.
[12] A PL3 for this IEP was also part of Student’s student record file, although not addressed by Parents. (P-B).
[13] Speech and OT services were provided in a 3:1 model over a 20-day cycle, with three weeks of direct services followed by one week of indirect consultation, including student observation, teacher training, and in-class whole group instruction.
[14] Specifically, Ms. Belibasakis administered the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence – Fourth Edition (WPPSI-IV), the Pre-School Testi of Nonverbal Intelligence (PTONI) and the Behavior Assessment System for Children-Third Edition (BASC-3).
[15] Student would only attend lunch inclusively without the 1:1 ABA Technician support, as he would be supported by lunchroom staff at that time. (Mannix VIII 41-42).
[16] The Speech and OT services were noted to be delivered in the same manner as the Stay-Put IEP. (S-1).
[17] This summary also contained language between asterisks, that Ms. Mannix testified was included in the additional information section of the 25-26 IEP. She explained that this asterisked language was provided by the RISE program to explain how the inclusion aspects of the program work so as to avoid needing to amend the IEP. However, a review of the 25-26 IEP does not show it to be so included. (S-1; S-5; Mannix VIII-69-70).
[18] Ms. Mannix also received emails from Mother after her November 2025 observation indicating she was very pleased with the approach Ms. Chirichiello took with Student. (Mannix VIII-60).
[19] 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").
[20] 20 USC 1401(9), (26), (29); C.D. v. Natick Public School District, et al., 924 F.3d 621, 624 (1st Cir. 2019), quoting Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools, 580 US 154, 158 (2017).
[21] Endrew F. ex. re. Joseph F. v Douglas County Sch. Dist., RE-1, 580 US 386, 399-400, 403 (2017); 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 1st Circuit in D.B. v. Esposito, 675 F.3d 26, 34 (1st Cir. 2012), comports with the Endrew F. standard).
[22] See Lessard v. Wilton Lyndeborough Coop. Sch. Dist., 518 F.3d 18, 29 (1st Cir. 2008).
[23] 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 Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Central Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 203 n. 25 (1982).
[24] 580 US at 402.
[25] 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).
[26] 603 CMR 28.01; see 20 USC 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.
[27] C.G. and B.S. v. Five Town Cmty. Sch. Dist., 513 F.3d 279, 284 (1st Cir. 2008) quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 207; see Endrew F, 580 US at 399-403.
[28] 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.
[29] 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”).
[30] Roland M., 910 F. 2d at 992.
[31] G.D. v. Westmoreland Sch. Dist., 930 F.2d 942, 948 (1st Cir., 1991)
[32] 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”).
[33] Schaffer v. Weast, 546 US 49, 56-57, 62 (2005).
[34] Id. (placing the burden of proof in an administrative hearing on the party seeking relief).
[35] 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.
[36] 34 CFR 300.518(a).
[37] While the BCH evaluation is consistent with the District’s testing, even without considering it, there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the Teams’ proposals.
[38] Said progress is primarily limited to improvement in fine motor skills and number recognition.
[39] Parents’ concerns (that the diagnosis was issued when Student was four and that the evaluation took place over only a few hours on one day in an unfamiliar setting) do not account for the fact that: 1) their pediatrician recommended it when Student was two, and the delay in testing was due to the extensive evaluation waitlist times that, sadly, are a reality in Massachusetts; and 2) in addition to the testing day, the multidisciplinary evaluation team also considered information gathered from Student’s pre-school teacher and SLP, and a review of his school records, including the recent Occupational Therapy evaluation that included a school observation.
[40] Parents point to the District’s refusal to transfer Student to another general education classroom in support of their argument that all available supports in the general education classroom were not appropriately exhausted. They contend this request should have been viewed as a special education accommodation. Notwithstanding that transferring Student to another general education classroom is a general education determination outside the Team process, and an issue already dismissed in this matter, it is undisputed that the District’s proposal for the RISE program was first made in the April 2025 IEP, when Student was concluding pre-school, and again in the 25-26 IEP proposed after the November 5, 2025 Team meeting. Both IEPs pre-date the time Parents began to communicate about concerns with Student’s behavior around Ms. Chirichiello as well as their requests for a classroom transfer.
[41] Student’s tendency to be distracted at arrival and to pull away or turn his head was evident throughout the January videos, including in the undated video of Student arriving at school with Mother. (P-K).
[42] Moreover, despite Student’s current ongoing absence from school, the Parties have continued to communicate and discuss the Team’s placement and IEP proposals as well as Parents’ concerns both with the Team proposal and Student’s return to Ms. Chirichiello’s classroom.
[43] 603 CMR 23.02, definition of “student record”; 603 CMR 23.03.
[44] See Factual Finding 50. Specifically, the Asterisk Statement advises: “As professionally determined, [Student] will be integrated into the general education setting at times where he can experience success. The overall goal is for effective inclusion and [Student] feeling confident and safe during his inclusion, the team will seek all opportunities for [Student] to experience this wherever appropriate. Frequency and delivery of pullout will be reassessed by the special educator, general educator and BCBA throughout the school year to address appropriate inclusion opportunities. [Student’s] academic and social services in a smaller classroom setting may be adjusted as additional inclusion opportunities are presented for [Student].
[45] Although outside my jurisdiction, Parents are strongly encouraged to return Student to school immediately particularly, given the testimony of Principal Weymer and Ms. Mannix with regard to other legal proceedings the District has had to purse to address Student’s continued absence from school, as the consequences for Student remaining out of school are significant and imminent. It was abundantly clear throughout the hearing the attentive, nurturing, and loving home and care that Parents provide to Student, and his happiness and contagious smile reflects the well-supported home he lives in.