COMMONWEATLTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Student v. Stoughton Public Schools
BSEA# 26-01130
CORRECTED DECISION
This decision is issued pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 USC § 1400 et seq.), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 USC § 794), the state special education law (MGL ch. 71B), the state Administrative Procedure Act (MGL ch. 30A), and the regulations promulgated under these statutes.
RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Parents requested a hearing on July 24, 2025, and the Hearing was scheduled for August 28, 2025. On August 13, 2025, the Parties jointly requested and were granted a postponement of the Hearing until October 24 and 27, 2025 for good cause. A Pre-Hearing Conference was held on September 8, 2025. The Hearing proceeded via Zoom (by agreement of the parties) on October 24 and 27, 2025. On October 27, 2025, the Parties submitted a joint request to postpone the closing of the record until November 17, 2025, in order to submit a closing argument, which was allowed. On November 17, 2025 the Parties submitted their closing arguments and the record closed.
Those present for all or part of the hearing were:
Mother
Sasheen Hazel Parent’s neuropsychologist
Ksera Dyette Clinical psychologist, Norfolk County Juvenile Court Clinic
Denise Fleming Inclusion teacher, Stoughton Public Schools
Caitlin Valair Social studies teacher, Stoughton Public Schools
Carolan Sampson Assistant Administrator of Secondary Special Education, Stoughton Public Schools
Ellen Collamore School psychologist, Stoughton Public Schools
Kayla Hatch Reading specialist, Stoughton Public Schools
Shelagh O’Donnell, Esq. Attorney, Parents
David Satin, Esq. Attorney, Parents
Elisabeth Chee, Esq. Attorney, Stoughton Public Schools
Roberta Ebhert Court Reporter
Ellen Muir Court Reporter
Catherine Putney-Yaceshyn Hearing Officer
The official record of this hearing consists of: Stoughton Public Schools’ exhibits marked S-1 through S-17; Parents’ exhibits marked P-1 through P-16; and approximately 6.5 hours of recorded oral testimony.
ISSUES:
- Whether the IEP for the period from 12/11/24 through 12/10/25, including the amendment for the period from 12/11/24 through 12/10/25, was reasonably calculated to provide the student with a free, appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment.
- If not, whether Student has a specific learning disability in reading that should be addressed by his IEP.
- Whether Student requires services in addition to those proposed by his IEP.
- Whether Student is entitled to compensatory services.
SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE
- The student (hereafter, “Student”) is a 13-year-old ninth grade student residing in Stoughton, MA and attending the Stoughton Public Schools. (hereafter, “Stoughton” or “the District”). During the relevant time period he attended middle school in Stoughton. Student’s most recently proposed IEP identifies his disabilities as an emotional impairment and a health impairment. (P-13, S-5)
- Student has struggled with sleep issues since at least his pre-K year when he would not nap when the other children did. He underwent a sleep study recently, but the report of its findings was not available as of the date of hearing. (Mother)
- Student started having some peer conflicts in the sixth grade and was physically assaulted at school that year. (Mother) A Stoughton administrator filed a Child Requiring Assistance (CRA), truant petition due to concern about Student’s absences and tardies from school on or around April 2023 (Student’s seventh grade). (S-1, Dyette, Mother) Mother found the CRA process to be both embarrassing and scary. Student underwent an evaluation with Dr. Dyette as part of the CRA process. He is currently receiving in-home therapy once each week and he also meets with a therapeutic mentor.
- Ksera Dyette, Psy.D., is a Massachusetts licensed clinical psychologist. She contracts with the Norfolk and Suffolk Juvenile Court Clinics to provide court-ordered evaluations for youth who are intersecting with the juvenile justice system in civil and criminal matters. Dr. Dyette is certified as a juvenile court clinician. She also has a private practice. In the past year she has conducted approximately 21 CRA evaluations and 62 evaluations overall. (Dyette)
Dr. Dyette evaluated Student on June 30, 2023, August 22, and 23, 2023. As she was precluded from discussing any specifics of her evaluation[1], all information regarding her evaluation is gleaned from her written report. Dr. Dyette conducted a clinical interview with Student on June 30, 2023 and with Mother on June 12, 30, and October 31, 2023. She spoke with Student’s CRA attorney, his Stoughton adjustment counselor, the then-assistant principal of his school, his guidance counselor, Mother’s CRA attorney, Student’s principal, and others. She reviewed Student’s school records, including attendance records and report cards as well as evaluations dating back to 2018. She also administered cognitive testing. (S-1)
Per her report, school staff informed her that Student had a number of absences, and that he was engaged and participated in his afternoon classes, but had a difficult time during morning classes. Mother had reported to school staff that Student’s sleep routine consisted of coming home from school and sleeping and then being awake in the middle of the night. Student’s adjustment counselor had concerns that Student had depression, as he was unable to get out of bed in the morning. Mother reported she did not think there was a specific reason for Student not wanting to go to school. However, she reported his social relationships were somewhat strained and noted he had been in a few fights and had been “jumped” after school at the park. Student’s IEP noted that he rarely attends ELA and is often tardy, missing the entire period. In math, Student struggled to stay awake and required reminders to stay on task. In October and November 2023 school staff and Parent reported that Student had not been absent as frequently, but continued to arrive late for school. (S-1)
Dr. Dyette obtained the following scaled scores on the Stanford Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition (SB-5) Nonverbal IQ: 78 (borderline impaired); Verbal IQ: 88 (low average); Full scale IQ: 82 (low average); Fluid reasoning: 91 (average); knowledge: 94 (average); Quantitative Reasoning: 89 (low average); Visual-Spatial Processing: 79 (borderline impaired); working memory: 71 (borderline impaired)[2]. She administered the WIAT-IV and noted that Student’s total achievement score of 83 was not highly representative of his functioning due to significant variation in his performance across domains. She reported his results in Reading were mixed[3]. His reading comprehension fell in the high average range and his word reading and phonemic proficiency fell in the average range. In contrast, his accuracy and reading rate fell in the low average range and his phonics decoding skills were in the very low range. His overall written expression composite was very low, while his sentence formulation skills and spontaneous writing fluency were in the low end of the average range. Student had difficulty spelling grade level words. His math scores showed mixed results. He scored in the very low range in mathematics and math fluency. His math calculation skills were low average and his problem solving skills were very low. His strongest performance was in his oral language skills which overall fell in the average range. His oral word fluency was high and his listening comprehension skills were very high and his ability to listen to a passage and respond to comprehension questions was average. (S-1)
On November 1, 2023 Dr. Dyette issued the report of her findings and recommendations (S-1) She concluded that Student appeared to exhibit signs of a Nonverbal Learning Disability/Disorder (NVLD/NLD), features of mild impairments in reading fluency and written expression and recommended that the possibility of dyslexia should be explored. She also suggested Student met the criteria for learning disorder, severe, with impairment in mathematics, including number sense, memorization of arithmetic facts, accurate or fluent calculation, and accurate math reasoning. She noted that Student’s prior testing revealed difficulties that have been consistent over time, suggesting the presence of additional or different diagnoses than his current ADHD diagnosis and recommended that Student undergo neuropsychological and neurological testing as ADHD was insufficient to explain Student’s current presentation and learning profile. She opined that Student’s consistently low processing speed and working memory were contributing to his attention difficulties, but were not the only areas of impairment. (S-1)
Dr. Dyette made a number of additional recommendations, including medication management and individual therapy. She noted concerns around structure and routines as well as sleep hygiene and technology monitoring at home. However, she stated it is also true that Student has had consistent deficits in the same areas of cognitive functioning since he was first assessed by the school in second grade. She recommended that Student would benefit from increased support at school in the areas identified in testing and during her evaluation. She also suggested that school personnel consider that Student arriving at school sleepy may be a strategy to avoid facing learning difficulties as well as mood challenges. She recommended that specific learning disabilities identified by her be added to his IEP. Dr. Dyette recommended that Mother continue to access case management services and that she and Student would benefit from an intensive case coordinator and therapeutic mentor and an in-home therapist. (S-1)
- The Team convened on November 9, 2023 and proposed an IEP for the period from November 8, 2023 – November 7, 2024. It noted Student had a health disability, due to ADHD which resulted in decreased attention and impulsiveness, as well as weak working memory, visual spatial skills, and difficulty reading without losing his place and writing at grade level. It included goals in the areas of emotional regulation, mathematics, English language arts, and executive functioning skills. The B grid proposed inclusion math instruction, English language arts, science, and social studies with the special education teacher or paraprofessional 4 x 50 minutes per 8 day cycle in each subject. The C grid provided for counseling with the school adjustment counselor 1 x 30 minutes per 8 day cycle and academic lab with the special education teacher 8 x 50 minutes per 8 day cycle. (P-5) The Team considered Dr. Dyette’s report and determined that updated achievement assessments needed to be done before adding a specific learning disability diagnosis to Student’s IEP. (P-5, Collamore) Mother accepted the IEP in full on December 7, 2023. (P-5) Stoughton never conducted the achievement testing. (Collamore)
- Sasheen Hazel, Psy.D., conducted a neuropsychological evaluation of Student on July 2, July 10, and July 13, 2024 (he was then twelve years, ten months old).4 She noted that throughout the evaluation, Student appeared visibly fatigued, impacting his performance on several tasks. On one of the testing dates, he stated that he had gone to bed late the previous night. Early in the testing, he primarily communicated through head nods and gestures instead of verbal responses. He displayed low energy and fell asleep during one of the tests and began snoring. The next sessions were scheduled for the afternoon to accommodate his fatigue. He initially seemed more alert but periodically closed his eyes and appeared to fall asleep. Despite his fatigue, he persisted through the testing. (S-2,P-6)
During her testimony, Dr. Hazel recounted that Student had fallen asleep during two untimed sub-tests of the WISC-V, similarities and matrix . (She noted that she would not have used the scores if he had slept during the timed sub-tests.) Student was alert and engaged during the afternoon testing sessions. He did not fall asleep during any of the reading assessments. She explained that Student’s extremely low working memory index score would cause him difficulty in recalling information from previous lessons day to day. She further explained that his extremely low processing speed score, especially relative to his verbal capacity, would cause him to struggle to keep up with the pace of the classroom. She noted that his difficulties in these areas can cause disengagement in learning and fatigue. Dr. Hazel opined that Student’s fatigue was complex and was a masking strategy for him. (Hazel)
- Dr. Hazel obtained the following scaled scores on the WISC V: Verbal Comprehension: 108 (average); Fluid reasoning: 85 (low average); Visual spatial: 72 (very low); working memory: 67 (extremely low); processing speed: 69 (extremely low); Full Scale IQ: 81 (low average). (S-2, P-6) On the Naming Speed Literacy sub-test Student scored 76 (borderline/very low) and on the Naming Speed Quantity he received an 80 (low average). On the WIAT Student attained the following scaled scores: word reading subtest 93 (average); pseudoword Decoding 83 (low average) and essay composition 68 (exceptionally low). (S-2, P-6)
Dr. Hazel diagnosed Student with a specific learning disability in reading, or dyslexia, Specifically, a subtype of dyslexia called “rapid automatized naming dyslexia.” Dr. Hazel explained that rapid automatized naming (RAN) is a type of dyslexia, where the main difficulty is in quickly naming familiar things such as letters, numbers, or objects, that should be automatic. For students with RAN dyslexia there is a problem with retrieving to the forefront so they can say it quickly. It is not a problem with recognition, but rather that it takes longer to retrieve information. It makes reading less fluent because it is not as automatic as it should be. (Hazel)
Dr. Hazel explained that Student’s RAN was illustrated by his results on the D-KEFS color word interference sub-test, a multi-step executive functioning test. She was concerned that Student scored below the first percentile on color naming, the most simple part of the sub-test, noting that when Student tried to do the task quickly, he had 21 errors, more than she has ever seen a student make. Dr. Hazel emphasized that the color naming score was a red flag that Student has problems with word retrieval for things that are common and should be automatic, She noted that although Student knew the colors, the process of retrieving the words was very slow.
Dr. Hazel based her diagnoses of rapid naming dyslexia on many factors including school performance over time, her discussions with Dr. Dyette, the review of her report, Mother’s concerns, and the concerns of Student’s CRA attorney. Among the most important factors leading to her diagnosis was the color word interference sub-test and his processing speed scores. (Hazel)
Dr. Hazel’s diagnosis was influenced by Student’s processing speed and his rapid speed index score as assessed by the WISC. She highlighted the discrepancy between his core intellectual abilities and his cognitive proficiency index, as well as a discrepancy between his language capacity and his spatial processing speed and working memory. She noted that his performance on the color word interference subtest was the most significant factor in her diagnosis, along with his history of difficulties and his presentation. (Hazel)
Dr. Hazel was not surprised to hear that Student had shown 80% or greater accuracy when decoding word lists on a school screening because his decoding skills were in the lower average range and decoding was not Student’s central problem. (Hazel)
She further explained that Student “really struggles with having that [sic] the self-regulation skills to inhibit what would be natural, to follow the rule, to maintain the rule in his head and do it at a pace that is on par with his peers.” She indicated that his test results show that he struggles with executive functioning and has a clear problem with automaticity.
Dr. Hazel recommended a sleep study to determine if there is any medical condition impacting Student’s prolonged and disruptive sleep patterns. She endorsed Student’s prior diagnosis of ADHD, predominantly hyperactive and impulsive presentation. She pointed to his notable reading challenges, especially with slow reading fluency (automaticity) and difficulties with rapid automatic naming which suggest the presence of dyslexia. She concluded that Student’s reading struggles may reflect both dyslexia and executive functioning deficits associated with ADHD. She further found that Student exhibits significant difficulties in his interactions with authority figures and displays persistent irritability, sleep disturbances and apathy, all of which align with symptoms of depression. She opined that consideration of oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) or a mood disorder, such as disruptive mood dysregulation disorder (DMDD) is warranted. She further indicated that Nonverbal Learning Disability (NVLD) should be considered as a possible diagnosis, but required more comprehensive evaluation to determine whether Student struggles with understanding nonverbal aspects of communication. (Hazel)
Dr. Hazel concluded by ascribing the following diagnoses to Student: attention-deficit/hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), predominantly hyperactive/impulsive presentation; oppositional defiant disorder (ODD); unspecified depressive disorder; and specific learning disorder, with impairment in reading. (S-2, P-6). She offered extensive recommendations to address these disability areas. including that he receive behavioral intervention, psychotherapy, and possibly medication, and that he work with a therapist who specializes in ADHD. She endorsed establishment of routine and structure at home, as well as family therapy. She noted Student might benefit from learning social skills and problem-solving strategies as well as from direct instruction on improving executive functioning. Academically, Dr. Hazel recommended small class size, and direct, specialized interventions that focus on improving fluency in reading and math. She recommended direct instruction and/or small class sizes Dr. Hazel testified that phonics instruction could help, but that wasn’t the core of what she was recommending. (Hazel, P-6, S-2.) Accommodations such as extended time were also endorsed. (P-6, S-2)
Ellen Collamore[4], a school psychologist in the Stoughton Public Schools, began to evaluate Student on or around October 3, 2024. After she began administering the WISC-V, she learned that Dr. Hazel had recently administered the WISC V , so she discontinued her testing. She did not write a report, because her results were not valid given the prior administration of the WISC-V less than a year prior. She did not conduct any other cognitive assessments, but acknowledged there were others she could have used. The Parties agreed that they would use Dr. Hazel’s neuropsychological evaluation results for the achievement assessment (WIAT-4) and psychoeducational assessment (WISC-V) and not require Student to complete additional assessments. (S-4) Ms. Collamore reviewed Dr. Hazel’s report and had some concerns. She did not agree with Dr. Hazel’s conclusions about Student having a specific learning disability in reading because there were fluctuations in his reading fluency scores. She did not specify which scores she was relying on. Further, Ms. Collamore noted that there is an environmental or emotional component to Student’s difficulty with school. She thought Student’s learning was also influenced by his attentional issues, his emotional difficulties, and his fatigue. She questioned the validity of the results of some of Dr. Hazel’s testing as Student had fallen asleep during some of the assessments. (Collamore)
- On November 13, 2024, Kayla Hatch, M.Ed.[5], conducted a reading screening of Student, which she described as much more informal than an evaluation, to gain a better understanding of his decoding and reading fluency skills and determine if he required multi-sensory, rules-based phonemic instruction. The screening took place during one forty-seven minute class period of which Student was evaluated for about thirty minutes. She utilized the DIBELS oral reading fluency test, scholastic reading assessment, IMSE Orton Gillingham Program Assessment and a word list screener. She concluded that Student was able to read within the accepted range on the DIBELS and the Scholastic 3-Minute Reading Assessment (Word Recognition, Fluency & Comprehension). However, he only scored a 2/6 for his comprehension rating, “indicating he will benefit from comprehension strategies, breakdown of information, look backs and teacher check-ins when answering implicit and explicit questions in his core content classes.” (S-3) Student told Ms. Hatch that making meaning of words in class is difficult for him. (Hatch) On the word list screener, a measure Ms. Hatch developed with another teacher, Student was able to decode when provided words in isolation containing the seven syllable types. On the IMSE Orton Gillingham Program Assessment – Phonetic Decoding Subtest, which assesses decoding fluency and phonics patterns, Student was able to decode real and nonsense words with single and multiple syllables with greater than 80% accuracy on each list. Ms. Hatch concluded Student is reading within range for his grade level and noted that pulling him from the regular education classroom for rules-based multi-sensory phonics instruction would not be appropriate. She recommended accommodations including adult scaffolding to break down reading strategies and tasks; word banks; frequent teacher check-ins for comprehension; additional time and practice for new vocabulary; using visual graphic organizers; and using annotating strategies. (S-3, Hatch)
Ms. Hatch indicated that there would be nothing for her to instruct him on via pull out services based on his screening scores. She noted that Student’s letter-sound relationships are intact and he does not have difficulty sounding out words and reading fluently. She acknowledged his reading comprehension difficulty but was of the view that it could be addressed with B grid services. In her opinion, the IEP as proposed by Stoughton was reasonably calculated to provide Student with a FAPE. (S-3, Hatch)
- Denise Fleming was Student’s eighth grade inclusion teacher during the 2024-2025 school year[6]. She taught Student’s academic support, or “academic lab” class and was a teacher in Student’s English and math classes. The academic lab was a pull-out small group class with a total of five students for academic support which worked on prioritizing students’ work and on academic reinforcement, which involved working on assignments for classes and reviewing for assessments. Ms. Fleming worked with Student in small groups and one on one. When Student was present his performance was varied, that is, sometimes he was fatigued and resisted engaging in work and other times he was engaged. He was often lethargic and frequently sleeping. When he was alert, Attendance had a massive impact on Student’s academics. He was only in English class twenty or fewer days last year. She noted that he had excellent vocabulary and knowledge of many things but struggled with writing, math concepts, and comprehension and was better at explaining things verbally than in writing was often lethargic and frequently sleeping. When he was alert, Ms. Fleming did not have concerns about him being able to absorb the information. (Fleming)
- Ms. Fleming also saw Student in math class daily. On the days Student was in class the teachers often had to wake him up although there were some days when he was animated in class. He struggled with basic math skills and struggled working independently or accepting help from the teachers. Ms. Fleming did not agree with the findings of Dr. Hazel regarding Student’s reading fluency. She did not see his fluency difficulty when he had to read a math problem or while reading in small groups. (Fleming)
- Caitlin Valir is an eighth grade history teacher in Stoughton[7]. Student was in Ms. Valir’s social studies class last year. He often arrived either after class had started or even after it had ended. She noticed a decline in his attention over the year and that he became more and more tired as the year progressed. When he was tired he would put his head down and might close his eyes. Ms. Valir would ask him to stand up to keep him alert and engaged. His success decreased as well because he was not consistently coming to class or getting the work done. However, when he was engaged he was able to complete his assignments and stay on task. He would volunteer to read and participate in skits. Ms. Valir did not have any concerns about Student’s reading fluency or speed. Student received a D as a final grade in her class. (Valir)
- The Team convened on December 10, 2024 and on December 25, 2024. Stoughton proposed an IEP for the period from December 11, 2024 through December 10, 2025. The Team concluded that Student continued to be eligible for special education services but rejected the finding that Student had a specific learning disability in reading, as the testing did not support such a finding. The N1 reported that Student performs at grade level on The Reading Benchmark and an additional reading assessment shows het could decode word lists of both real and nonsense words with 80% or greater accuracy. (P-10) At the meeting, the Team did not utilize the DESE mandated forms for determining whether a student has a learning disability. (Collamore) Despite the discussion of concern around Student’s fatigue at school, a functional behavioral analysis was not recommended. (Collamore)
- The IEP proposed pursuant to the December 10, 2024 meeting noted disabilities in the areas of emotional impairment and health impairment. It had goals in writing, executive functioning skills, reading comprehension, mathematics, and emotional regulation. The B Grid contained the following services for the period from December 11, 2024 – August 31, 2025: English inclusion 4 x 45 minutes per 4 day cycle; math inclusion 4 x 45 minutes per 4 day cycle; social studies inclusion 4 x 45 minutes per 4 day cycle; and science inclusion 4 x 45 minutes per 4 day cycle. For the period from 9/1/25 – 12/10/25 the B grid contained the following services: English inclusion 2 x 75 minutes per 4 day cycle; math inclusion 2 x 75 minutes per 4 day cycle; social studies inclusion 2 x 75 minutes per 4 day cycle; science inclusion 2 x 75 minutes per 4 day cycle. The C grid for the period from 12/11/2024 – 8/31/25 included academic lab 4 x 45 minute per 4 day cycle and counseling with the school adjustment counselor for 3 x 30 minutes per month. For the period from September 1, 2024 – 12/10/2025 it contained academic lab with the special education teacher 2 x 75 minutes per month; and counseling with the school adjustment counselor 3 x 30 minutes per month. Mother partially rejected the IEP and accepted the placement on April 8, 2025. (P-10)
- Mother wrote a letter dated April 7, 2025 to Denise Fleming explaining which portions of the IEP she was accepting and rejecting. She rejected the failure of the IEP to include specific learning disability (with impairment in reading) as a disability category. She rejected the removal of certain accommodations listed in Student’s prior IEP, including the removal of MCAS accommodations. She rejected the omission of direct or small group instruction to target Student’s rapid automatized naming (RAN) dyslexia and other specific recommendations of Dr. Hazel. She rejected the omission of a social skills group. Finally, she rejected the IEP’S failure to include recommendations from Stoughton’s reading specialist. (P-11)
- The Team proposed an amended IEP on or around April 2025[8]. It appears that the only change to the IEP was the addition of some classroom accommodations as recommended by Kayla Hatch in her reading screening report. (P-13, S-5)
- Student received the following grades on his eighth grade report card : Language Arts: Trimester 1: F, Trimester 2: F, Trimester 3: F; Final: F; Science: Trimester 1: D-; Trimester 2: F, Trimester 3: D-; Final: F; U.S. Government and Civics: Trimester 1: B; Trimester 2: D-, Trimester 3: F; Final: D; Math: Trimester 1: D; Trimester 2: F, Trimester 3: D-; Final: F. He had 1 excused absence and 37 unexcused absences and was tardy 128 times. It is unclear from the record whether Student’s grades were entirely the result of the number of unexcused absences or attributable to the quality of his work. (P-15)
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION:
Student is an individual with a disability, falling within the purview of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)[9] and the state special education statute.[10] As such, he is entitled to a free appropriate public education (FAPE). Neither his status nor his entitlement is in dispute. The Parties, however, disagree as to the appropriateness of the last proposed IEP, whether Student should have been determined to have a specific learning disability, and whether he is entitled to compensatory services.
Legal Standard: Eligibility for Special Education.
The right to a FAPE for all students with a disability is guaranteed by both federal and state law through the IDEA, M.G.L. c. 71B, and their corresponding regulations[11]. If a student is found eligible to receive special education, the Team must then develop an IEP setting forth the special education and related services that meet the special education needs of the student[12]. An IEP is a “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”[13]. The IDEA defines a “child with a disability” as a student having specifically identified disabilities “who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services”. 20 USC 1401(3)(A) and (B)[14] (emphasis added). “Special education” is defined as “specially designed instruction[15], at no cost to the parents, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability, … [inclusive of] speech-language pathology services, or any other related service, if the service is considered special education rather than a related service under State standards”[16].
Similarly, Massachusetts defines a “school age child with a disability” as a child “… who, because of [specifically identified disabilities] … is unable to progress effectively in regular education and requires special education services, including … only a related service … [if they] are required to ensure access of the child with a disability to the general education curriculum[17]. The regulations define “eligible student” as “… a person aged three through 21 … who has been determined by a Team to have a disability(ies), and as a consequence is unable to progress effectively in the general education program without specially designed instruction or is unable to access the general curriculum without a related service”. 603 CMR 28.02(9) (emphasis added). To “[P]rogress effectively in the general education program”, means to make documented growth in the acquisition of knowledge and skills, including social/emotional development, within the general education program, with or without accommodations, according to chronological age and developmental expectations, the individual educational potential of the student, and the learning standards set forth in the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks and the curriculum of the district.[18]
Thus, both federal and state law utilize a 2-pronged approach in determining a student’s eligibility for special education[19]. The first prong involves identifying whether the student has one or more of the disabilities enumerated in the law[20]. The second prong involves determining if, by reason of that disability, the child is unable to progress effectively in the general education program (i.e., make documented growth in the acquisition of knowledge and skills, including social/emotional development, with or without accommodations) without specially designed instruction or is unable to access the general curriculum without a related service[21].
“[I]n determining eligibility, the school district must thoroughly evaluate and provide a narrative description of the student’s educational and developmental potential”[22]. In Massachusetts, the evaluation is to be conducted within 30 school days of receiving parental consent, by “appropriately credentialed and trained specialists” and adapted to the age of the student.[23] Initial evaluation assessments must include, “an assessment in all areas related to the suspected disability” and an “educational assessment by a representative of the school district”[24]. Just as the appropriateness of an IEP is not to be viewed in hindsight, so too must a review of a Team’s eligibility determination be made by looking at the information available to the Team at the time of its determination[25].
The burden of persuasion in an administrative hearing is placed upon the party seeking relief. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 126 S. Ct. 528, 534, 537 (2005). In this case, Parents are the party seeking relief, and as such have the burden of persuading the Hearing Officer of their position by a preponderance of the evidence.
It is in the context of the foregoing legal framework that I now turn to the issues before me in the instant matter.
In order to determine whether the IEP proposed by Stoughton for the period from 12/12/24 through 12/10/25, including the amendment, were reasonably calculated to provide Student with a FAPE in the LRE, it is necessary to first determine whether Student has a specific learning disability in reading that should have been addressed by his IEP. Dr. Dyette determined that Student’s ADHD diagnosis was insufficient to explain his presentation and learning profile. She noted that although his slow processing speed and working memory were contributing to his attention difficulties, they were not the only areas of impairment and she concluded he met the criteria for specific learning disabilities in math and reading and that Dyslexia be considered as a diagnosis for him. Significantly, Dr. Dyette evaluated Student as part of a CRA filed by Stoughton. Although Stoughton initiated the CRA that triggered the evaluation due to attendance issues, it did not adopt the recommendations of the clinician who evaluated Student. Instead, at the Team meeting when Dr. Dyette’s evaluation was reviewed, the Team determined that updated achievement assessment was necessary before adding a specific learning disability to Student’s IEP. Stoughton never conducted such achievement testing, however and continued to find that Student did not have a specific learning disability in reading[26]. A year after Dr. Dyettte diagnosed Student with a specific learning disability in reading, Student underwent a neuropsychological evaluation conducted by Dr. Hazel. Dr. Hazel also determined that Student had a specific learning disability in reading. After Dr. Dyette’s evaluation, in October 2024, Ms. Collamore began to evaluate Student using the WISC-V. She learned that Dr. Hazel had recently administered the WISC-V to Student, thus invalidating the results that she had obtained. Stoughton then agreed to rely on the testing results of Dr. Hazel’s neuropsychological evaluation instead of conducting its own additional testing of Student. Ms. Collamore criticized the reliability of parts of Dr. Hazel’s testing because Student fell asleep during two sub-tests. However, Dr. Hazel credibly explained that the results were still valid because the affected sub-tests were untimed. Ms. Hatch’s screening, by her own testimony, was brief and informal. Dr. Hazel’s neuropsychological report was comprehensive and in-depth. She relied on a wide variety of assessments. Further, Dr. Hazel’s specific learning disability diagnosis is consistent with reports from school staff. Ms. Fleming, Student’s inclusion and academic lab teacher, testified that Student struggled with comprehension, writing and math. Student reported his difficulty with comprehension to Ms. Hatch. Student’s performance on Ms. Hatch’s Scholastic 3-Minute Reading Assessment showed weakness in reading comprehension. Ms. Hatch was unsure of the reason for Student’s poor comprehension, but Dr. Hazel explained it was caused by RAN dyslexia, continuing that her diagnosis was based on his testing over the years and the consistent concern regarding his reading.
I found Dr. Dyette’s and Dr. Hazel’s testing results, which were consistent, to be more reliable than the results of Ms. Hatch’s reading screening as they were more comprehensive. Stoughton did not provide persuasive countervailing evidence to demonstrate the lack of efficacy of such results. Therefore, based on the preponderance of the evidence, I find that Student does have a disability in the area of reading.
The Team did not use DESE’s mandated form 28M/10 in determining that Student did not have a specific disability in reading. Ms. Collamore testified that there was an environmental or emotional component to Student’s difficulty with school, however, the N1 does not state that as a reason for rejecting the finding of a specific learning disability in reading. Rather, the N1 states that Stoughton rejected the specific learning disability in reading diagnosis because testing does not support it. As explained above, the only recent testing in the record supports a diagnosis of a specific learning disability in reading. I therefore find that Stoughton’s position is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Having determined that the record supports a finding that Student has a specific learning disability in reading, I must find that the proposed IEP, which does not identify or address the specific learning disability in reading, was not reasonably calculated to provide Student with a FAPE in the LRE. The IEP identifies Student’s areas of disability only as health impairment and emotional impairment.
Having determined that Student has a specific learning disability in reading and that his disability is not addressed by the most recently proposed IEP, I find that Student requires services in addition to those proposed in the IEP. Dr. Hazel’s recommendations were not specific with respect to service delivery. Therefore, the Team shall convene to review the recommendations of Dr. Hazel, conduct additional testing as it deems appropriate, and determine the appropriate service delivery model to address Student’s reading disability.
Finally, I find that based on the failure of the proposed IEP to address all of Student’s areas of need, he is entitled to compensatory services. Compensatory education is an award of educational services that is offered prospectively to compensate for a previously inadequate program. Reid v. District of Columbia, 43 IDELR 32 (D.C. Cir. 2005) The award of compensatory services is an equitable remedy available to courts and hearing officers, designed to bring the student “to the point he would have been, had he received a FAPE all along.” R.P. ex rel. C.P. v. Prescott Unified Sch.Dist., 631 F.3d 1117, 11126 (9th Cir. 2011.) In considering compensatory claims, hearing officers must “balance the equities” and consider closely the conduct of both parents and districts, as well as the resultant impact on the student.
There is nothing in the record as to what specific services would compensate Student for the failure of the IEP to include services to address his specific learning disability in reading. Therefore, I find that Student is entitled to compensatory services from the date that the IEP was initially proposed without recognition of his specific learning disability (December 2024) until he begins receiving services to address the disability. The Team will convene to determine what services will compensate Student and when and how they will be provided.
Finally, Student’s significant fatigue in school continues to be an impediment to his learning. Despite this continued difficulty, Stoughton has not proposed a means to determine the cause of it or to address it, other than filing the CRA. It is imperative that the Team work to identify the cause of Student’s near constant fatigue in school. Dr. Dyette and Dr. Hazel opined that Student could be using his fatigue as a means to mask difficulties in learning, while Stoughton staff testified that it is the result of hid staying up too late at night playing video games. A functional behavior assessment and/or a home assessment might well shed light on the cause of Student’s fatigue and thus allow the Team to address it. Additionally, if the sleep study recommended by Dr. Hazel has been completed, the Team should convene to review its findings.
ORDER
The IEP proposed by Stoughton for the period from December 11, 2024- December 10, 2025, as amended by the IEP for the period from December 11,2024 through December 10, 2025 was not reasonably calculated to provide Student with a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. The Team will convene to memorialize the determination that Student has a specific learning disability in reading, to determine the appropriate service delivery to address such specific learning disability, and to determine appropriate compensatory services for Student for the period December 2024 to the date services to address his specific learning disability begin. Further, Stoughton shall conduct a functional behavior assessment and/or a home assessment to get to the root cause of Student’s fatigue in school.
So ordered by the Hearing Officer,
/s/ Catherine M. Putney-Yaceshyn
Catherine M. Putney-Yaceshyn
Dated: January 26, 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 Motion for Summary Judgment
20 U.S.C. s. 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. If a ruling orders Dismissal with Prejudice of some, but not all claims in the hearing request, or if a ruling orders Summary Judgment with respect to some but not all claims, the ruling of Dismissal with Prejudice or Summary Judgment is final with respect to those claims only.
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 the decision does not operate as a stay. This means that the decision must be implemented immediately even if the other party files an appeal in court, and implementation cannot be delayed while the appeal is being decided. Rather, a party seeking to stay—that is, delay implementation of– the decision of the Bureau must request and obtain such stay from the court having jurisdiction over the party’s appeal.
Under the provisions of 20 U.S.C. s. 1415(j), “unless the State or local education agency and the parents otherwise agree, the child shall remain in the then-current educational placement,” while a judicial appeal of the Bureau decision is pending, unless the child is seeking initial admission to a public school, in which case “with the consent of the parents, the child shall be placed in the public school program.”
Therefore, where the Bureau has ordered the public school to place the child in a new placement, and the parents or guardian agree with that order, the public school shall immediately implement the placement ordered by the Bureau. School Committee of Burlington v. Massachusetts Department of Education, 471 U.S. 359 (1985). Otherwise, a party seeking to change the child’s placement while judicial proceedings are pending must ask the court having jurisdiction over the appeal to grant a preliminary injunction ordering such a change in placement. Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988); Doe v. Brookline, 722 F.2d 910 (1st Cir. 1983).
Compliance
A party contending that a Bureau of Special Education Appeals decision is not being implemented may file a motion with the Bureau of Special Education Appeals contending that the decision is not being implemented and setting out the areas of non-compliance. The Hearing Officer may convene a hearing at which the scope of the inquiry shall be limited to the facts on the issue of compliance, facts of such a nature as to excuse performance, and facts bearing on a remedy. Upon a finding of non-compliance, the Hearing Officer may fashion appropriate relief, including referral of the matter to the Legal Office of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education or other office for appropriate enforcement action. 603 CMR 28.08(6)(b).
Rights of Appeal
Any party aggrieved by a final agency action by the Bureau of Special Education Appeals may file a complaint for review in the state superior court of competent jurisdiction or in the District Court of the United States for Massachusetts. 20 U.S.C. s. 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).
Confidentiality
In order to preserve the confidentiality of the student involved in these proceedings, when an appeal is taken to superior court or to federal district court, the parties are strongly urged to file the complaint without identifying the true name of the parents or the child, and to move that all exhibits, including the transcript of the hearing before the Bureau of Special Education Appeals, be impounded by the court. See Webster Grove School District v. Pulitzer Publishing Company, 898 F.2d 1371 (8th. Cir. 1990). If the appealing party does not seek to impound the documents, the Bureau of Special Education Appeals, through the Attorney General’s Office, may move to impound the documents.
Record of the Hearing
The Bureau of Special Education Appeals will provide an electronic verbatim record of the hearing to any party, free of charge, upon receipt of a written request. Pursuant to federal law, upon receipt of a written request from any party, the Bureau of Special Education Appeals will arrange for and provide a certified written transcription of the entire proceedings by a certified court reporter, free of charge.
[1] Student’s CRA case has been expunged. A case is expunged when the court determines it does not need to further supervise the case or that appropriate recommendations have been made. When CRA cases are expunged, the evaluator is not permitted to discuss the specifics of her report. (Dyette)
[2] Dr. Dyette also administered the Piers-Harris Self Concept Scale, Third Edition; the Rise self-form; the Connors CBRS Self-Report; and the Rorschach Performance Assessment System (S-1)
[3] Dr. Dyette’s report does not contain the actual scores obtained. (S-1)
[4] Ms. Collamore has a Master’s degree in school psychology and is licensed by DESE. She has worked in Stoughton for twenty eight years. (Collamore)
[5] Ms. Hatch, a reading specialist in Stoughton, has a Master’s degree in special education and is Orton-Gillingham trained and certified. (Hatch)
[6] Ms. Fleming is a certified teacher and has a Master’s degree in education. (Fleming)
[7] She has a Master’s degree and is MA certified to teacher history grades seven through twelve. (Valir)
[8] The record is unclear as to when or whether the Team reconvened to propose the amendment. The N1 has the same date as the previously proposed IEP (12/25/24). Ms. Fleming initially testified that the Team convened in April 2025 to propose the amended IEP, but her recollection as to specific dates was unclear. There is no documentary evidence that the Team convened in April 2025.
[9] 20 USC 1400 et seq.
[10] MGL c. 71B.
[11] 20 USC 1400, et seq.; M.G.L. c. 71B; 34 CFR 300.000, et seq.; 603 CMR 28.00 et seq.
[12] 603 CMR 28.02(11); 603 CMR 28.05(3).
[13] Roland M. v. Concord School Committee, 910 F.2d 983, 992 (1st Cir. 1990).
[14] The identified disabilities in the IDEA include “other health impairments” and for students ages 3 through 9, “developmental delays defined by the state”.
[15] “Specially designed instruction”, is defined as “adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible child under this part, the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction— (i) To address the unique needs of the child that result from the child’s disability; and (ii) To ensure access of the child to the general curriculum ….” 34 CFR 300.39(a)(3) (emphasis added).
[16] 20 USC 1401(29); 34 CFR 300.39(a). Massachusetts defines “special education” as “specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of the eligible student or related services necessary to access the general curriculum and shall include the programs and services set forth in state and federal special education law.” 603 CMR 28.02(20).
[17] M.G.L. c. 71B §1. Relevant to this proceeding, the disabilities recognized in the Massachusetts laws and regulations include developmental delay for children ages 3 through 9 (provided supra), and “other health impairment”, including health impairments “due to … [ADD] or [ADHD] …”. 603 CMR 28.02(7)(b) and (i).
[18] 603 CMR 28.02(17).
[19] Mr. I. ex rel. L.I. v. Maine School Admin. Dist. No. 55 , 480 F.3d 1, 13-14 (1st Cir. 2007); In Re: Lynnfield PS, BSEA # 12-1425, 18 MSER 247 (Berman, 2012); In Re: Agawam PS, BSEA # 08-2564/08-4033, 14 MSER 53 (Byrne, 2008); In Re: New Bedford PS, BSEA # 01-3505, 7 MSER 261 (Crane, 2001); In Re: Berlin-Boylston RSD, BSEA # 00-1711, 6 MSER 247 (Byrne, 2000); In Re: Canton PS, BSEA # 00-2912, 6 MSER 239 (Erlichman, 2000);see In Re: Stoughton PS, BSEA # 99-0807, 5 MSER 1 (Oliver, 1999).
[20] Id.
[21] Id.; see M.G.L. c. 71B §1; 603 CMR 28.02(17).
[22] 603 CMR 28.02(9); see34 CFR 300.8(a).
[23] 603 CMR 28.05(2).
[24] 603 CMR 28.05(2)(a).
[25] See Roland M. 910 F.2d at 992; In Re: Littleton PS, BSEA #15-04613, 22 MSER 102 (Putney-Yaceshyn, 2016); In Re: Newton PS, BSEA #14-08637, 23 MSER 104, (Figueroa, 2015) (“In determining the appropriateness of a Team’s determination of eligibility …, one must objectively look at the information available to the Team at the time the determination is made … (citations omitted)).
[26] The IEP resulting from that Team meeting was accepted in full and is not before me. (P-5)