COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Student v. Medford Public Schools
BSEA No. 25-15229
DECISION
This decision is issued pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or IDEA (20 USC 1400 et seq.); Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 USC 794); the Massachusetts special education statute or MGL c. 71B, the Massachusetts Administrative Procedures Act (MGL c. 30A) and the regulations promulgated under these statutes.
The Student in the instant case is a nearly ten-year-old third-grader who currently attends the Landmark School in Manchester, MA, as a parentally-placed and funded student. Previously, Student attended a private, parochial school in Medford, and, at certain times, also received discrete special education services funded by Medford.
On June 26, 2025, Parents filed a hearing request with the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) in which they asserted that Medford proposed Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) covering the 2024-2025 school year, and corresponding placement in the District language-based program, were inappropriate and did not offer Student a free, appropriate, public education.
Upon receipt of Parents hearing request, the BSEA scheduled an initial hearing date of July 31, 2025. On July 14, 2025, the District requested a postponement of the hearing to enable the parties to pursue resolution and conduct discovery. On July 25, 2025, the BSEA issued an order granting the postponement request for good cause, and postponing the hearing to November 3, 6, and 7, 2025.
The hearing was held on those days at the office of the BSEA in Malden, MA. At the request of Parents, the hearing was open to the public. Both parties were represented by counsel, and had an opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, as well as to submit documentary evidence for consideration by the Hearing Officer.
On November 7, 2025, Medford filed an assented-to request to postpone the hearing until December 12, 2025, to allow the parties time to submit written closing arguments. The request was granted for good cause. On December 12, 2025, both parties filed closing arguments and the record closed.
The record in this case consists of Parents Exhibits P-1 through P-48, Schools Exhibits S-1 through S-15, as well as stenographically-recorded witness testimony.
Those present for all or part of the proceeding were the following:
Students Mother
Students Father
Joan Bowen, Medford Public Schools
Kathleen Bradley, Interim Special Education Coordinator, Medford Public Schools
Sybil Cardarelli, School Psychologist, Medford Public Schools
Stephanie Coe-Smith, Occupational Therapist, Medford Public Schools
Lauren Davidson, Special Education Teacher, Medford Public Schools
Johanna Granada, Speech/Language Therapist, Medford Public Schools
Allison Watts, Special Education Teacher, Medford Public Schools
Dr. Brian Willoughby, Private Neuropsychologist
Lauren Unflat-Berry, Private Speech/Language Therapist
Meghan Sebens, Dir. Of Student Progress and Performance, Landmark School
Kathleen Babcock, Academic Advisor, Landmark School
Maureen Flannery, Teacher, Landmark School
Wendy Ellis, Speech/Language Therapist, Landmark School
Brittany Jones, Educational Consultant for Parents
Lisa Nelson, Parents advocate
Peter Hahn, Attorney for Parents
Madelyn Caiado, Legal Assistant for Attorney Hahn
Alisia St. Florian, Attorney for Medford Public Schools
Members of the Public
Carol H. Kusinitz, Court Reporter
Sara Berman, BSEA Hearing Officer
ISSUES PRESENTED
The issues to be decided are the following:
- Whether the IEP dated 3/28/23 to 3/27/24, and as revised, denied Student a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) pursuant to applicable federal and state law;
- Whether the IEP dated 4/30/24 to 4/29/25, as revised, denied and continues to deny Student a FAPE pursuant to federal and state law;
- If so, whether Parents unilateral placement of Student at the Landmark School was justified such that Parents are entitled to reimbursement for all costs for placement at Landmark for the 2024-2025 school year, including tuition and transportation;
- Whether Parents are entitled to reimbursement for all costs incurred by Parents related to private services during the time at issue;
- Whether Parents are entitled to compensatory services for all denials of FAPE over the past two years.
POSITION OF PARENTS
Medfords proposed placement in its substantially-separate language-based classroom was inappropriate and would not have met Students needs in light of her severe, double-deficit dyslexia coupled with ADHD and executive functioning challenges. As observed by Parent, Parents evaluator and educational consultant, the proposed placement would not have provided Student with language-based strategies infused throughout the curriculum or with one-to-one reading instruction that Student needed in light of her disabilities in order to make effective progress. Further, Medford did not employ best practices applicable to Students profile in its reading instruction, instructional content was above Students skill level, and the student cohort present in the class during the relevant period would have been inappropriate.
Faced with a proposed placement that was inappropriate, Parents were justified in unilaterally placing Student at the Landmark School, which is a DESE-approved private school that specializes in serving students who, like Student, present with language-based learning disabilities (including dyslexia) in the context of average to above-average cognitive ability. Landmark is well-suited to providing Student with educational programming tailored to meet her unique needs, and Student has made substantial progress during her enrollment there. As such, Parents should be reimbursed for costs incurred for their unilateral placement of Student at Landmark.
Further, Parents are entitled to reimbursement for the expenses of certain services that they provided privately because Student had been unable to access school-based services due to lack of transportation and/or because such services were and are educationally necessary or constituted stay put. These services included reading instruction provided by Commonwealth Learning Center (CLC) for extended school year 2024, speech-language services from September 2024 through June 2025 and for extended school year 2024, occupational therapy services for June 2023 through January 2024, and for extended school year 2024. Lastly, Parents and Student are entitled to compensatory services for approximately 50 hours of reading services that were missed between June 2023 and February 2024 due to lack of transportation.
POSITION OF SCHOOL
Parents have failed to meet their burden of persuasion that the IEPs, services and placement offered to Student during the relevant periods were not reasonably calculated to provide Student with FAPE. Medford first evaluated Student and proposed an IEP and services for Student while she was attending a local parochial school. Upon receiving and reviewing a private evaluation that recommended a substantially-separate, language based program for Student, the Medford Team promptly offered placement in its language-based classroom.
This program was staffed with appropriately qualified and certified teachers who would have provided Student with instruction tailored to meet her unique needs. The format for service delivery (e.g., individual vs. small group reading instruction) would have been adjusted as needed. In fact, staff credentials of Medfords proposed instructors were more closely aligned to the recommendations of Parents private evaluator than those of Landmark staff.
Lastly, it is notable that Student has never been educated within the Medford Public Schools, and has never received direct services from Medford educators. Parents have not met their burden of proving that the relevant IEPs and language-based class were inappropriate, and, as such, are not entitled to reimbursement for the Landmark placement, or to compensatory services. Regarding reimbursement, Medford already has reimbursed Parents for privately-obtained related services, and is not obligated for further reimbursement.
SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE
Student is a nearly ten-year-old child who lives with Parents in Medford. The Medford Public Schools is the Local Education Authority (LEA) responsible for ensuring that Student receives a free, appropriate public education (FAPE), pursuant to the IDEA and MGL c. 71B. Student is currently a fourth-grader at the Landmark School, a DESE-approved private day school in Manchester, MA, where Parents unilaterally placed her at the beginning of the 2024-2025 school year.
Student is universally described as happy, social, creative, intelligent, empathetic, academically motivated and hard-working. She has excellent conversational and social skills, and many friends. Neuropsychological testing indicates that Students cognitive abilities range from average to superior, with a relative weakness (low average) in working memory. Student does not have any significant social/emotional or behavioral difficulties, although she has experienced anxiety related to her learning struggles.
In addition to her many strengths, Student has a significant language-based learning disability, diagnosed as double-deficit dyslexia, which has seriously impeded her progress in reading, written expression and math. She also has received diagnoses of a communication disorder (related to articulation), ADHD, inattentive type, a disorder of written expression, and dyscalculia. As a result of her disabilities, Students academic achievement test scores and ability to perform classroom tasks are significantly lower than would be expected given her strong cognitive abilities, and well below those of her peers.
Students academic career began with a Montessori preschool in Medford. Student thrived during her first year in the program, which had no expectation that the children would be beginning to read or write. She loved school and absorbed information rapidly. Student continued at the Montessori program for Kindergarten, and almost immediately began to struggle.
Parents originally planned to enroll Student in the Medford Public Schools for first grade, (2022-2023 school year) but were unable to secure a slot in the school-based before-school and after-school care that their work schedules required. Partially for this reason, they enrolled Student in St. Raphaels Parish School, a parochial school in Medford that did provide before and after-school care.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Based on the record and the well-reasoned arguments of counsel, I conclude that Parents have not met their burden of persuasion on any of their claims with the exception of claims for compensatory service for sessions of reading missed due to lack of transportation.
Therefore, within 30 days from the date of this Decision, Medford is directed to convene a Team meeting to determine the amount and type of compensatory service to be offered to Student.
Parents are knowledgeable and diligent advocates for their daughter, and understandably seek an educational setting for her that seems to best meet her needs. Clearly, they believe that Landmark constitutes such a setting, and Student appears to be thriving there. To secure public funding for this placement, however, Parents must prove that Medfords proposed Language-Based Program was not reasonably calculated to provide Student with FAPE, and they have not met this burden.
By the Hearing Officer,
/s/ Sara Berman
Sara Berman
Dated: January 21, 2026
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
EFFECT OF FINAL BSEA ACTIONS AND RIGHTS OF APPEAL
Effect of BSEA Decision, Dismissal with Prejudice, and Allowance of a Motion for Summary Judgment
20 USC 1415(i)(1)(B) requires that a decision of the Bureau of Special Education Appeals be final and subject to no further agency review. Similarly, a Ruling Dismissing a Matter with Prejudice and a Ruling Allowing a Motion for Summary Judgment are final agency actions.
Accordingly, the Bureau cannot permit motions to reconsider or to re-open either a Bureau decision or the Rulings set forth above once they have issued. They are final subject only to judicial (court) review.
Except as set forth below, the final decision of the Bureau must be implemented immediately. Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 30A, s. 14(3), appeal of a decision does not operate as a stay.
Rights of Appeal
Any party aggrieved by a final agency action by the Bureau of Special Education Appeals may file a complaint in the state superior court of competent jurisdiction or in the District Court of the United States for Massachusetts for review. 20 USC 1415(i)(2).
An appeal of a Bureau decision to state superior court or to federal district court must be filed within ninety (90) days from the date of the decision. 20 U.S.C. s. 1415(i)(2)(B).