In Re: Desmond[1] & Dracut Public Schools BSEA# 25-08407

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS

BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS

In Re: Desmond[1] & Dracut Public Schools                                            

BSEA# 25-08407

DECISION

          This decision is issued pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq.), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. §794), the state special education law (M.G.L. c. 71B), the state Administrative Procedure Act (M.G.L. c. 30A), and the regulations promulgated under these statutes.

A hearing was held on May 14, 15, and 22, 2025, before Hearing Officer Amy Reichbach. With the consent of both parties and agreement of all participants, the hearing was held in a virtual format, via Zoom. Those present for all or part of the proceedings were:

Mother

Father

Student

Ryan Bowen                             Social Studies Teacher, Richardson Middle School (RMS), Dracut Public Schools (Dracut) 

Hope Ann Brochin, PhD             Parents’ Private Evaluator

Emily Frost                               Special Education Teacher, RMS

Amanda Honan                         Special Education Teacher, RMS

Kimberly Lawrence                    Director of Student Services, Dracut

Melody O’Neil                           Student’s Private Tutor

Megan Sebens                          Academic Dean, Landmark School (Landmark)

Christine Schwing                     Special Education Team Chair, RMS

Danielle Smith                          English Teacher, RMS

Mercedes Tran                         School Psychologist, Dracut

Sean Goguen, Esq.                   Attorney for Dracut

Michelle Moor, Esq.                  Attorney for Parents

Todd Richard-Peckham             Attorney for Parents

Carol Kusinitz                           Court Reporter

The official record of the hearing consists of documents submitted by Parents and marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-72;[2] documents submitted by Dracut and marked as Exhibits S-1 to S-26;[3] three and a half days of oral testimony and argument; and a four-volume transcript produced by a court reporter. At the parties’ request, the record was held open for oral closing arguments on May 23, 2025. The record closed on that date.

1. INTRODUCTION

On February 13, 2025, Parents filed a Hearing Request with the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) against Dracut, asserting that the District failed to offer Desmond, who is twelve years old and carries diagnoses of a Specific Learning Disorder (SLD) with Impairment in Reading (“double deficit” dyslexia), a SLD with Impairment in Written Expression, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and a Generalized Anxiety Disorder, a free, appropriate public education (FAPE). They sought prospective placement of Desmond at Landmark via an Individualized Education Program (IEP) for the 2025-2026 school year; payment of all associated costs, including tuition and transportation; and compensatory services for Dracut’s failure to provide Desmond with a FAPE during the 2024-2025 school year. The Hearing was scheduled for March 20, 2025.

On February 24, 2024, Dracut filed its Response to the Parents’ Request for Hearing (Response), asserting that the IEPs and placements proposed for Desmond for the 2024-2025 school year were reasonably calculated to provide him with a FAPE in the least restrictive environment (LRE).

On March 4, 2025, the parties jointly requested that the Hearing be postponed to May 14 and 15, 2025, due to a scheduling conflict and to provide them with time to explore informal resolution of the issues underlying the Hearing Request. This request was granted for good cause.

On April 22, 2025, the undersigned Hearing Officer issued an agreed-upon Protective Order regarding redacted IEPs and Section 504 Plan.

Following a Conference Call on May 12, 2025, a third day of Hearing was added (May 22, 2025) and the parties requested a postponement until May 23, 2025, for the purpose of proffering oral closing arguments. This request was allowed for good cause. During the Conference Call, the parties also agreed to address the appropriateness of the IEP proposed by Dracut for the period from May 1, 2025 to April 30, 2026.

2. FINDINGS OF FACT[4]

1. Desmond lives in Dracut with Parents and an older sister. Others describe him as intelligent, sweet, earnest, kind, highly motivated, hard-working, ambitious, receptive to help, engaged, and eager to please. (P-2; Brochin, I: 37; O’Neil, I: 158; Smith, III: 619-20) Desmond describes himself as kind, smart, athletic, and hard-working. (Desmond, I: 205) He enjoys playing soccer and riding his bike. (Desmond, I: 205, 236)

2. Desmond experienced some speech and language delays at a young age, and his preschool teacher recommended an evaluation for special education. He was found eligible for speech and language services at this time, and Dracut began providing these services twice per week. (P-2; Mother, I: 243, II: 345)

3. Desmond entered kindergarten on an IEP for speech and language services. His kindergarten teacher noted that he had difficulty with attention and could not sit still. He was prescribed Ritalin, which appeared to help with his attention.[5] When Desmond was in first grade, Parents noted that he was having difficulty reading and spelling and requested a further evaluation. Dracut determined that he was not eligible for specialized instruction in reading or writing. Parents remained concerned and hired a private tutor to work with him the summer after first grade. Parents noted that Desmond continued to struggle with literacy in second and third grades. He began receiving informal help for reading as a third grader, during the 2019-2020 school year, and was formally diagnosed with ADHD in January 2020. Desmond’s Team convened on November 16, 2021, following his three-year reevaluation, and determined that he was no longer eligible for special education services. His IEP was discontinued at this time. (P-2; Desmond, I: 205; Mother, I: 243-46 II: 344-45)

4. During fourth and fifth grades and most of sixth grade, Desmond attended Dracut in the general education setting. During fifth grade, Parents hired a tutor to help him with reading and writing outside of school, as he was becoming frustrated with the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) packets he was completing for homework. At the end of fifth grade, Desmond’s teachers told Parents that he was reading at grade level and that they should not be concerned about his writing problems. (P-2; Mother, I: 246-47, II: 363, 373)

5. In September of sixth grade, Desmond took the i-Ready benchmark test, which showed he was reading at the third-grade level. Parents were upset, and they reached out to Desmond’s teachers, noting that he had been points away from not meeting expectations on his English Language Arts (ELA) MCAS. Parents suggested that Desmond was either struggling or not applying himself at school, wondered whether his ADHD medication needed to be adjusted, and asked whether they should request a full evaluation. They indicated that they believed Desmond had been on an upward trajectory but that this had shifted. Desmond’s science/math teacher responded that he was doing fine in both classes.[6] His ELA/social studies teacher had noticed that Desmond was struggling with attention and with independent work and explained that he was trying to decipher whether Desmond’s work was impacted by attention issues or whether he was having difficulty with the material. Neither teacher referred Parents for a special education evaluation. At this point, Parents were spending two to three hours each night assisting Desmond with homework, teaching him sentence structure and how to elaborate, and trying to reteach social studies concepts. One night, Desmond came home from school upset and referred to himself as stupid. He was also distressed about his grades. Parents arranged for him to start seeing a mental health counselor, with whom he met for a year. At the time of the Hearing, Desmond had just begun seeing his counselor again, upon her return from maternity leave. (P-2, P-26, P-27; Mother, I: 248-54, II: 342-4, 377-78)

6. In February 2024, Dr. Ann Brochin conducted a comprehensive neuropsychological evaluation of Desmond at Parents’ request.[7] Dr. Brochin has worked for over three decades as a school psychologist in public and private schools and in private practice, where she administers neuropsychological assessments[8] to children, adolescents, and sometimes college students; provides psychotherapy, parent guidance, and parent training; consults with schools; collaborates with colleagues; and supervises other mental health professionals. Dr. Brochin’s clients are referred to her through other clients, pediatricians, psychiatrists, therapists, and schools. Because her clients are “primarily in public schools,” Dr. Brochin engages in frequent contact and collaboration with public schools, at times trying to assist school districts improve programs to permit children to remain within the public school setting. She has observed students in both public schools and independent special education schools. Dr. Brochin has also published a book chapter on ADHD and one on the psychometric properties of tests for preschoolers. (P-1; Brochin, I: 26-36)

7. Dr. Brochin administered a battery of tests,[9] noting that during testing, Desmond demonstrated problems with attention and executive functioning, consistent with Parents’ report of concerns in these areas.[10] He had difficulty breaking down complex material and determining a systematic approach, often diving into tasks without planning. When he spoke, he displayed a superior vocabulary but “exhibited significant word retrieval deficits, made syntactical and grammatical errors, and had trouble formulating his thoughts on his first attempt when specific responses were required to answer test questions.” (P-2; Brochin, I; 36, 43)

Dr. Brochin concluded that cognitively, Desmond has outstanding verbal comprehension abilities overall. His higher-order reasoning and problem-solving abilities are intact, but he has vulnerabilities in visual working memory and processing speed. On the WISC-V, Desmond’s cognitive protocol was significant for the variability between subtest scores, ranging from the twenty-fifth to the ninety-first percentile, indicating a disorder of attention and/or learning in and of itself. His performance on the WRAML-3 was highly variable on tests of memory and learning. He scored in the first percentile on a measure of auditory sequential memory that required tracking and recalling information that was presented orally, whereas he demonstrated stronger recall of verbal material presented in a meaningful context.  On the Rey Complex Figure Test, Desmond demonstrated an average score on a measure of abstract visual memory. Compared with his lower scores on the WRAML-3 measures of rote memory, particularly timed tasks, this suggests that when he has appropriate strategies, Desmond’s ability to encode and remember information is stronger. His performance on the Boston Naming Test – Second Edition was below average. On the CTOPP, Desmond’s scores reflected “double deficit” dyslexia, with “stunning weakness” in rapid naming and phonological awareness. Desmond was unable to break words down into small units of sound or manipulate them in his mind at anywhere near the expected level. Both rapid digit and rapid letter naming scores were severely reduced.[11] On the Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System Trail Making Test (D-KEFS), Desmond’s scores “reveal[ed] significant difficulty working efficiently and accurately on tasks that necessitate tracking more than one process at a time.” (P-2; Brochin, I: 38-46)

Academically, Desmond’s reading skills on two subtests of the WIAT-4 were well below average. His Word Reading subtest score was in the twelfth percentile; even many of his correct responses required multiple attempts. Desmond’s Pseudoword Decoding subtest score was in the seventh percentile, profoundly reduced, demonstrating that when he did not recognize a word from memory, he was generally unable to decode it. On the GORT-V, Desmond had great difficulty reading connected text and achieved a score well below average. Specifically, Desmond’s score for reading rate was in the ninth percentile, and his scores for accuracy and fluency fell in the fifth percentile. He earned a comprehension score at the lower end of the average range. Dr. Brochin noted, however, that this score should be interpreted with caution due to the brevity of the passages and Desmond’s ability to “use his outstanding reasoning abilities to determine responses to questions asked about passages he was barely able to read.” His Oral Reading Index was at the fourteenth percentile, below average range. Desmond’s written language scores at the sentence and essay level were well below average. Desmond’s essay composition skills on a particular subtest fell at the thirty-second percentile, but Dr. Brochin cautioned that this score does not reflect the simplicity or organizational weakness of his writing. Desmond displayed profoundly reduced spelling/encoding skills; his score fell within the eighth percentile, demonstrating a lack of mastery in basic spelling rules and patterns. His math scores on the WIAT-4 fell in the average to above average range. (P-2; Brochin, I: 48-57)

Measures of Desmond’s social-emotional functioning indicated self-awareness and excellent social skills. According to Dr. Brochin, Desmond’s struggles to achieve were, however, impacting his confidence and well-being, such that he presented with symptoms of anxiety, social anxiety, and self-consciousness, as well as cognitive distortions and negative thought patterns. (P-2; Brochin, I: 57-58)

Overall, Dr. Brochin concluded that in the context of Desmond’s “strong reasoning, problem solving, and logical thinking, he demonstrate[d] a pattern of deficits considered the hallmark features of a severe, pervasive, language-based learning disability that includes dyslexia.” He showed significant weaknesses on tests of phonological processing. His deficits in phonological awareness and rapid naming supported a diagnosis of double deficit dyslexia. His reading of text was “incredibly labored and replete with errors,” and he had “trouble formulating his thoughts into well structured, grammatically and syntactically accurate sentences.” Desmond’s low average comprehension abilities on the measures administered, bolstered by his ability to fill in the gaps due to his reasoning abilities, “should not be interpreted to mean that his reading disability is any less severe.” Desmond also demonstrated problems with attention, cognitive impulsivity, organization, and hyperactivity consistent with a diagnosis of ADHD. Specifically, Dr. Brochin diagnosed Desmond with Generalized Anxiety Disorder; ADHD; a SLD with impairment in reading (dyslexia); and a SLD with impairment in written expression. At Hearing, Dr. Brochin characterized Desmond’s learning disability as severe. (P-2; Brochin, I: 58-59)

Dr. Brochin recommended that Desmond be placed in a fully integrated, full-time, language-based program with teachers who have training and experience working with students with severe language-based learning disabilities that include dyslexia. She noted that all instruction must be language-based and delivered in a small group (six to eight students maximum) or one-to-one setting. Dr. Brochin opined that it would be inappropriate to place Desmond in the general education setting for any class as he could not keep up with the pace of instruction or the language, reading, and writing demands.[12] Dr. Brochin also cautioned against placement in a program with students with cognitive disabilities, autism spectrum or other developmental disabilities, or psychiatric disorders, because their educational needs differ from Desmond’s, whereas, if he were placed with other dyslexic learners, the program could be tailored to his learning needs throughout the day. She recommended a daily 1:1 Language Arts tutorial to focus on decoding, reading text for fluency, reading comprehension, and all aspects of written language, through a highly structured, multi-sensory, research-based program such as Orton-Gillingham (OG). Dr. Brochin also observed that due to Desmond’s severe dyslexia, his tutorial should incorporate a research-based, systematic multisensory program such as the Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing Program for Reading, Spelling, and Speech (LiPS) to support development of his phonological processing, and a program designed to improve oral reading fluency, such as Read Naturally or the Six-Minute Solution. Use of a scribe, text-to-speech (a technology whereby a student wears a headset and the computer reads problems aloud), and audiobooks are contraindicated for students with dyslexia like Desmond, as these strategies deprive him of time to practice the skills he needs to improve. Given his executive functioning and attention deficits, tasks should be broken down, and he should be provided with direct instruction in study skills and guided practice of strategies to address these deficits. Dr. Brochin also recommended therapy with a licensed mental health professional to target Desmond’s anxiety and self-esteem. (P-2; Brochin, I: 59-65, 96-99, 131-32)

Dr. Brochin was aware of Desmond’s strong A and B grades at the time she evaluated him, but this did not impact her recommendations, given the severity of his dyslexia and the amount of time his parents and his sister spent helping him with homework. Dr. Brochin testified that because of these efforts, Desmond’s grades do not reflect his ability to meet the expectations of the curriculum independently. (Brochin, I: 65-66)

8. Within a few days of Dr. Brochin’s evaluation, both Dr. Brochin and Parents contacted Landmark’s admissions department on Desmond’s behalf. Within the next month, Parents applied to Landmark for the 2024-2025 school year. (Brochin, I: 114, 117, 126; Mother, II: 357-58, 364-66) Desmond was wait-listed. (Mother, I: 265)

9. Parents submitted Dr. Brochin’s report to Dracut on March 8, 2024 and requested a Team meeting. RMS Team Chair Christine Schwing[13] responded right away, first indicating, according to Mother, that the neuropsychological report “constituted a Child Find,” and that she would send consent forms. Five days later, Parents had not received those forms and reached out to Ms. Schwing, at which point she told them that they needed to get a 504 plan first.[14] (Mother, I: 256-57; Schwing, II: 509-10)

10. On or about March 17, 2024, Dracut sent Parents an Evaluation Consent Form, which Parents signed and returned the following day. Parents also requested that Dracut convene a Team meeting prior to the completion of District testing to review Dr. Brochin’s report and consider a preliminary finding of eligibility. The District did not do so, but did schedule a 504 meeting in the interim, as one of Desmond’s teachers had expressed concern regarding both his attention span and his writing skills. (Schwing, II: 510-11)

11. Dracut convened a meeting on April 11, 2024, to review Dr. Brochin’s report. At this time, the Team agreed that Desmond had a health and learning disability that affects his ability to focus, read, and decode, and found him eligible for a 504 Plan. (P-3; S-4; Mother, I: 257; Schwing, II; 511-12; Tran, III: 716-19)

12. In the spring of 2024, Dracut conducted an evaluation. At this time, Desmond was still struggling at school, spending hours doing homework with his parents despite regularly attending extra help periods after school and at lunchtime. (P-36; Mother, I: 257-60) Around this time, a psychiatrist took over Desmond’s medication management for his ADHD from his primary care physician.[15] She increased the dosage. (Mother, I: 260-61, II: 368)

13. During his sixth grade year, up to this point, Desmond had received the following grades: Quarter 1: B in English, B in Math, B in Social Studies, and B in Science; Quarter 2: B in English, A- in Math, B+ in Social Studies, and C+ in Science; Quarter 3: B in English, A in Math, A in Social Studies, and B in Science. (P-4, P-9; S-3, S-5)

14. Dracut school psychologist Mercedes Tran[16] conducted Desmond’s psychoeducational evaluation on May 2 and 6, 2024, and authored a report dated May 20, 2024.[17] On the Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Skills, 2^nd Edition (RIAS-2), Desmond’s Full-Scale Cognitive Functioning fell in the Average range, though Ms. Tran noted that this score should be read with some caution due to discrepancies between Desmond’s individual composite and subtest scores. Desmond’s Verbal Index score was in the Average range, as were his Non-Verbal and Speeded Processing Index scores. His Memory Composite fell within the Very Low range, which Ms. Tran stated could be associated with ADHD. Parent report on the Conners-4 reflected some concerns with attention and hyperactivity, whereas the school report reflected no concerns. On the BRIEF-2, areas of concern included working memory, planning and organizing, and task monitoring. (P-4; S-1; Tran, III: 720-23)

15. According to her report and testimony, Ms. Tran conducted Desmond’s Academic Achievement testing, which consisted of a Record Review, Testing Observations, and administration of selected subtests of the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement – Third Edition (KTEA-3), on May 10, 2024.[18] She acknowledged that initially, Desmond’s testing was to be completed by a special education teacher, but none was available, so she “decided to be a team player’ and do it herself.[19] Desmond’s Reading Composite score fell in the Average range. This score is comprised of the Letter-Word Recognition subtest, on which he scored in the Low Average range, and the Reading Comprehension subtest, on which he scored within the Average Range. Notably, Desmond was not able to read the last two passages of the Reading Comprehension subtest out loud. Ms. Tran reported that Desmond was able to complete this subtest because of two strategies: he made strong attempts to read the passages out loud and he looked for the answers. Desmond took two additional supplemental reading subtests, scoring within the Low Average range on Nonsense Word Decoding and within the Average range in Reading Vocabulary. Ms. Tran noted that while Desmond was able to complete the latter, he did not understand key words and made educated guesses based on context clues. Desmond’s Writing Composite score was within the Low Average range and he received a score in the Average range on the Written Expression subtest. He received a score in the Very Low range on the Spelling subtest (fourth percentile).[20]  Ms. Tran did not administer any timed Ready Fluency tests. Asked on cross-examination why she had not recommended specialized reading instruction to remediate his dyslexia, Ms. Tran explained that as she would not be writing Desmond’s goals or working with him directly, she wanted to “give a little bit more flexibility to [her] co-workers.” She suggested that recommendations for specialized academic instruction or services could have been made by the Team chair, the ELA teacher, the special education teacher, or Parents.[21] Ms. Tran testified that as a school psychologist, she had no input as to Desmond’s IEP in terms of his learning disabilities, and also testified that she was not aware that Desmond’s reading and writing skills could be remediated with specialized instruction. (P-6, P-29; S-2; Tran, III: 723-30, 741-48, 751-64, 777)

16. On May 21 and 22, 2024, Heather Pattangall MS, CCC/SLP administered Desmond’s Speech and Language Evaluation.[22] Desmond’s scores fell within the Average range on the PPVT-5, the EVT-3, and the Listening Comprehension subtest of the OWLS-II. He achieved a Below Average range score on the Oral Expression subtest of the OWLS-II, leading the examiner to administer the CASL-2 Sentence Expression test to measure the same skills on a different day and time. Desmond scored within the Average range on this measure. Based on assessment results and Desmond’s ability to access the general education curriculum, as reflected by his grades, Ms. Pattangall concluded that he did not meet eligibility criteria for having a speech-language impairment. (P-5; S-3)

17. On May 24, 2024, Dracut convened a Team meeting to review the evaluations performed by Dr. Brochin and the District. The Team also discussed Desmond’s MCAS scores, grades, and his mid-year i-Ready diagnostics, which showed both reading and math at the early-to-mid sixth-grade levels. The Team found Desmond eligible for special education under the categories of Health (ADHD) and Specific Learning Disabilities in Reading Fluency, Basic Reading Skills, and Written Expression.[23] Parents requested placement at Landmark or in another substantially separate language-based program, which the Team denied. Parents requested that Desmond be placed with other students with dyslexia for reading services, and not with students with autism spectrum disorder; this request was also denied. In the Team meeting summary, Ms. Schwing wrote the following, “The special education regulations do not require schools to place or provide language-based programs.” At Hearing, she testified that the special education regulations do not state that students must be placed in language-based programs, though she acknowledged that if a student was not making effective progress in his current placement and needed a language-based program to receive a FAPE, a school district might be required to place him in one. (P-9; S-3, S-5, S-20; Mother, I: 261-63, II: 323-24; Schwing, II: 512-18, 556-60; Tran, III: 729-37)

18. Following the Team meeting, Dracut proposed an initial full-inclusion IEP dated May 24, 2024 to May 23, 2025 (2024-2025 IEP), consisting of three goals, one each in Reading, Writing, and Executive Functions. Per five-day cycle, the IEP proposed B-Grid support in ELA (5 x 45 minutes) and C-Grid services in Executive Functioning (2 x 45 minutes) and Reading (3 x 45 minutes), as well as Consultation in the A-Grid (1 x 10 minutes per month) and several accommodations. (P-9, P-10; Schwing, II: 518)

19. The Reading goal in Desmond’s 2024-2025 IEP stated that he “would increase encoding, decoding, and fluency skills, demonstrating ability beyond the current performance level as measured by progress reports, data collections, and the … objectives” set forth. The current performance level associated with this goal was derived from Desmond’s i-Ready reading data and did not include information regarding his ability to encode or decode words at his instructional level. At Hearing, Ms. Schwing acknowledged that this should be corrected.[24] (P-10; S-6; Schwing, II: 566-69; Frost, III: 860-61)

20. Parents believed that the goals proposed within the IEP were not sufficiently ambitious. They partially accepted the IEP, permitting the implementation of all proposed services, but rejected the omission of a substantially separate language-based program for all academic subjects and the lack of daily one-on-one reading instruction. They also asserted that Desmond’s IEP benchmarks should require 80% achievement, rather than 60%. (P-10; S-6; Mother, I: 264-65; Schwing, II: 518)

21. When Desmond began seventh grade, he was happy and excited, and he looked forward to his reading class. Shortly thereafter, however, he reported that he was reading to himself or doing i-Ready in his reading class. Parents were surprised, as they had believed Desmond would be receiving direct phonics instruction, such as OG, as Ms. Schwing had said as much and had told Parents that Ms. Frost, the special educator teaching his reading class, had taken all the classes for Orton-Gillingham (but had not been certified as she had gone on maternity leave). Parents reached out to Ms. Schwing to express their concern. (P-12; Mother, I: 266-269, II: 341; Schwing, II: 562-63)

22. Emily Frost is a seventh-grade special education teacher at RMS. She teaches a reading class and the seventh grade substantially separate ELA class, and she co-teaches three ELA classes (including Desmond’s). Ms. Frost just completed her fourth year teaching at RMS. She received her master’s degree in elementary education and her Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) licensure in moderate disabilities (K-8) in May 2021. Ms. Frost is not licensed as a reading specialist in Massachusetts, nor is she certified in any reading programs designed to remediate dyslexia. She has some experience with the OG MaxScholar Reading Intervention Program, a general education program, but she did not finish the training. Ms. Frost refers to Samantha Nelson, an eighth-grade special education teacher/liaison who completed the MaxScholar OG training in January 2023, for additional support. She did not know whether Ms. Nelson is OG certified.  (S-19; Frost, III: 786-88, 838) Ms. Frost sees Desmond three times per week for a 55-minute reading class. Class sizes range from nine to twelve, depending on the day, and students have a range of profiles, including lower cognitive skills; autism; communication impairments; and social/emotional needs. One student has a SLD in Written Expression; none of the students in Desmond’s reading class has been diagnosed with a SLD in Reading.  Ms. Frost sets up stations or group work, based on students’ objectives. She testified that the structure of OG is “more catered towards elementary school,” but that teachers can adapt strategies and templates to middle school. Specifically, in her class, Ms. Frost interweaves OG in comprehension reading and games, though she testified that after hearing Mother’s concerns about how Desmond was perceiving the class, she began breaking students into smaller groups and using the term “Orton-Gillingham” with them.[25] Ms. Frost testified that she incorporates the OG structure of reviewing previous skills, then introducing a new skill, then engaging in different drills, followed by a reading section, and finally a writing/spelling section during small group workstation instruction. One paraprofessional works with Desmond’s reading class twice a week, focusing on fluency and comprehension with students, while Ms. Frost works with students “with decoding and Orton-Gillingham.” Desmond participates actively in reading class, where he demonstrates a strength in comprehension and serves as a role model for other students in concepts such as syllabification. Ms. Frost has Desmond read out loud at least once a week to the whole class when they are doing i-Ready comprehension packets, to assist her in measuring his fluency. (P-46; P-52, P-53, P-54, P-55, P-56; P-58, P-60, P-61, P-62, P-65, P-67, P-68, P-69, P-70, P-71, P-72; Frost, III: 795-802, 804-05, 845, 850-52) According to Ms. Frost, Desmond is one of the few students in his reading class who has passed MCAS, and he is at a higher Fountas and Pinnell level than any of his classmates. (Frost, III: 806-07) When Ms. Frost asked Desmond how he feels about reading, however, he said that he feels like a failure. (Frost, III: 795)

23. On cross-examination regarding her knowledge of and experience with Orton-Gillingham, Ms. Frost acknowledged that she is aware that OG is data-driven and systematic, but she was not aware of the scope and sequence utilized within OG or with all seven core principles of the OG program integral to the delivery of OG to students with dyslexia. (Frost, III: 839-43)

24. Throughout the fall, Desmond reported to Mother that his general education classes were easy, that he only had to do half of what his peers were doing, and that his teachers were giving him answers, particularly in his ELA class. He received As and Bs on his fall report card and made honor roll. Mother believed that these grades were not an accurate reflection of his performance. (S-9; Mother, I: 270-71)

25. Desmond’s first set of progress reports on his 2024-2025 IEP were issued on November 14, 2024. (P-13; S-12) At this time, of his four Executive Functions benchmarks, Desmond had achieved two and exceeded one. The benchmark he was still working toward involved language-based tasks. Ms. Frost acknowledged that when she reported on Desmond’s progress toward his Reading goal, she had no baseline from which to measure how much progress he had made toward his first benchmark, which stated that “Given explicit instruction using a specialized phonics program, [he] will be able to encode words at his instructional level with 80 percent accuracy in 3 out of 5 opportunities.” However, Desmond had already achieved 70% accuracy in three out of five opportunities by November on this benchmark, as well as on his benchmarks pertaining to decoding words at his instructional level, and decoding and encoding multisyllabic words. (P-13; S-12; Honan, II: 414-17; Mother, II: 425-26; Frost, III: 862- 65) 

26. Shortly thereafter, on November 18, 2024, Mother reached out to Ms. Schwing to request that a Team meeting be scheduled for early December, as she was confused about the support Desmond was receiving and was seeking clarification from the Team. Ms. Schwing responded by email, asking whether Parents wished to speak on the phone or would prefer a formal Team meeting. Although Mother responded that she would prefer a formal Team meeting, Ms. Schwing called anyway, asking what was happening and what Parents wished to discuss. Mother explained that she was concerned that Desmond was receiving answers in class, receiving too much help in math, and not receiving direct reading instruction. Ms. Schwing responded that she would look into it and schedule a Team meeting to discuss these issues. Ms. Schwing then suggested that Dracut conduct additional testing, and the District proposed a three-week extended evaluation to enable the Team “to gather some updated information on [Desmond]’s reading skills.” (P-28, P-37, P-38, P-39; S-7; Mother, I: 271-72, II: 347-49; Schwing, II: 520-22)

27. On December 2, 2024, Ms. Frost administered the WIAT-4, specifically the Dyslexia Index. Desmond scored in the Low Average range overall, with a Low Average score in Word Reading (an untimed measure of letter and letter-sound knowledge and single-word reading), an Extremely Low score in Pseudoword Decoding (a measure of phonic decoding skills using fake/nonsense words), and an Average score in Orthographic Fluency (a measure of word recognition fluency and sight vocabulary using words commonly seen in texts). Ms. Frost explained at Hearing that this last score shows that once Desmond is familiar with a word, he understands it and is able to read it. (P-14; S-8; Mother, I: 274; Frost III: 810-13)

28. On December 5, 2024, the District convened the Team to review Ms. Frost’s testing and discuss Parents’ concerns. (Mother, I: 276) Desmond’s math teacher explained that he received accommodations, but not modifications, on math tests. According to Mother, at the meeting Ms. Schwing and Ms. Frost agreed that Desmond has dyslexia, but Ms. Frost stated that he would not qualify for an IEP in reading due to his grades and the pace at which he completed his work. Mother testified that Ms. Frost recommended reducing Desmond’s reading services from three days to two days per week, but Ms. Schwing disagreed with this recommendation. Ms. Frost testified that she made this recommendation at a progress meeting in November, before the test results were received, not at this meeting.[26] However, in an email Ms. Frost sent to Ms. Schwing on March 13, 2025, she wrote, “Regarding your other email, I brought up the reduction in reading services initially in the first meeting we had this year with the family (I believe it was December 5). I suggested reducing his services from 3 days to 2 days.” (P-15; S-9, S-11; Mother, I: 276-77; Schwing, II: 527; Frost, II: 857)

29. Following this meeting, the Team amended the 2024-2025 IEP by adding the WIAT-4 Dyslexia Index results and removing all accommodations and modifications for math. A text-to-speech accommodation was added as an accommodation on the math MCAS.[27] The Team also added a note that quality would be emphasized over quantity “to keep [the] curriculum challenging for him and do not except him from writing.” No further changes were proposed. (P-15, P-16; S-9, S-10; Mother, I: 278-79; Schwing, II: 526-28)

30. Parents accepted the Amended 2024-2025 IEP in part, continuing their objection to Dracut’s failure to place Desmond in a language-based program, as well as the District’s failure to offer adequate reading/writing remediation services. (S-10; Mother, I: 278-79)

31. Parents contacted Dr. Brochin in November 2024 to discuss their ongoing concerns about Desmond. They requested a follow-up evaluation and a program observation. At this time, Dr. Brochin referred Parents to Melody O’Neil for tutoring. (Brochin, I: 66-67, 77-78; Mother, I: 272-73, II: 325)

32. Ms. O’Neil holds a bachelor’s degree in communication disorders, a master’s degree in special education, mild to moderate, and a DESE professional license in mild to moderate special needs, grades 5 through 12. She has worked as a private tutor since September 1997 and has also worked at Landmark since that time in a variety of roles, including speech language assistant/interim expressive language department head; expressive language teacher/tutor; academic advisor/case manager; outreach presenter; and associate director of admissions. Ms. O’Neil has served as the associate director of high school admissions at Landmark since 2006. She also tutors in the summer program and offers private tutoring to students. Ms. O’Neil was trained and certified in the Lindamood-Bell LiPS and Visualizing and Verbalizing (V & V) programs in connection with her work at Landmark. (P-23; Brochin, I: 113; O’Neil, I: 136-40)

33. In December of 2024, Ms. O’Neil began tutoring Desmond privately, twice weekly, for an hour each session. On the days Desmond receives tutoring, Mother drives him 75 to 90 minutes to Ms. O’Neil’s home, and he meets with her from 4:00 to 5:00 PM. Desmond’s tutoring with Ms. O’Neil continued through the commencement of the Hearing.

In preparation for her work with Desmond, Ms. O’Neil reviewed his neuropsychological evaluation and noted gaps in phonological awareness and contextual reading fluency, as well as a need for basic sound-and-symbol correspondence. When she first met with Desmond, he was friendly, eager to learn, and engaged immediately in his lessons. He lacked automaticity with even short vowel sounds and other early elementary skills, so Ms. O’Neil had to begin with foundational word attack and decoding skills. Desmond required a lot of repetition and review. He also struggled with encoding and oral reading fluency. Ms. O’Neil observed that because Desmond had to expend so much mental energy to try to read, he often had to go back into the text to find answers to comprehension questions, a common learning pattern for dyslexic children. (O’Neil, I: 141-49; Mother, I: 273-74, II: 359-60)

34. At Hearing, Ms. O’Neil described LiPS as a research-based, phonetics-based multisensory approach to teaching reading. She described V & V as a program geared more toward students who struggle specifically with comprehension. Ms. O’Neil primarily uses the LiPS program with Desmond. (O’Neil, I: 138, 140-41) In addition, she uses elements of Great Leaps, phonics and phrases, and Read Naturally for fluency, workbook materials such as Six-Way Paragraphs and Spellbound for spelling patterns, and Vowel Power for syllabification work. At Hearing, Ms. O’Neil explained that Desmond particularly appreciates the “dot and grab” approach, as it helps him with decoding unfamiliar and monosyllabic words. She also described the difference between a “cold read” and a “hot read,” and how she can tell that Desmond is learning to read passages rather than memorizing them. Ms. O’Neil works from lesson plans and takes notes on Desmond’s errors and progress so she can spiral back in her teaching. She also assigns Desmond independent reading books, and his mother listens to him read aloud and tracks his errors. Since she began working with Desmond, Ms. O’Neil has seen him gain strategies for decoding unfamiliar words. (P-24; O’Neil, I: 149-57, 161-65)

At Hearing, Desmond described several of these strategies and testified that he finds his tutoring with Ms. O’Neil to be helpful. (Desmond, I: 230-31) Mother testified that Desmond is engaged and enjoys working with Ms. O’Neil. (Mother, I: 274)

35. Parents applied to Landmark on behalf of Desmond again in December 2024. (Mother, II: 320)

36. When Desmond returned to school in January 2025 following winter break, he reported that in his first two reading classes with Ms. Frost, he focused on “breaking up words,” but after that, he returned to reading to himself while she remained at her desk. (Mother, II: 290)

37. On January 10, 2025, Mother emailed Ms. Frost, explaining that she had left the December Team meeting with the understanding that Desmond would be receiving small group OG instruction three times a week for 45 minutes, targeting phonics and fundamental building blocks of words, specialized for dyslexics like him. Yet Desmond had only had two small group sessions, in groups of approximately eight children, focused on phonics/decoding, but had recently worked on a physical i-Ready reading packet during his reading block instead. Mother also expressed her concern regarding Desmond’s first percentile decoding skills. She wrote, “I would like to better understand how often [Desmond] is receiving reading services each week, how big of a group he is in during these pullouts, and whether Orton-Gillingham is being provided to him during each session.” Mother copied Ms. Schwing on this email. (P-40; Mother, II: 290-92)

38. On January 13, 2024, Ms. Schwing responded to Mother by email. She characterized Ms. Frost as a certified reading teacher, although Ms. Frost is neither certified as a reading teacher nor does she hold herself out as such.  Ms. Schwing explained that Desmond had been working on his i-Ready packet while Ms. Frost was administering Fountas and Pinnell benchmark assessments to other students. Ms. Schwing reviewed Desmond’s KTEA-3 and WIAT-4 Dyslexia Screening results and opined that because Desmond had “dead center average” reading comprehension skills, it was “great news” that his extremely low ability to decode “fake words,” was not “impacting his ability to comprehend his reading or real world texts” (sic). Moreover, he had made Honor Roll for the last quarter of sixth grade and the first quarter of seventh. As to OG, Ms. Schwing wrote,

“At no time was it stated that he was going to be put into an Orton Gillingham class and just given that intervention. He currently receives reading services and interventions based on the needs outlined in his signed IEP. Part of that instruction does include Orton Gillingham (sic) instruction and requires [Desmond] to utilize Orton-Gillingham strategies throughout the tasks assigned in reading class.”

Ms. Schwing also explained that Ms. Frost had reported that “a majority of the time, class ends with a decoding and encoding practice, incorporating Orton-Gillingham instruction and strategies as well.”[28] At Hearing, Mother testified that she had not received any OG post-unit assessments or reading notes from school. (P-50; Mother, II: 291-97; Frost, III: 838-39)

39. On January 14, 2025, Mother responded to Ms. Schwing, writing that she remained concerned that Desmond needed OG instruction provided with fidelity. She challenged Ms. Schwing’s assertion that Desmond’s strong reading comprehension scores made up for his non-functional decoding skills and advocated for “a more robust set of reading services and language-based programming.” (P-41, P-50; Mother, II: 298-99)

40. The following day, on January 15, 2025, Ms. Schwing wrote the following response to Mother:

“I feel like you are putting undue stress on yourself and [Desmond]. When in the adult world is he going to have to read a list of nonsense words? His reading comprehension, his ability to read grade level text is dead center average. He is where he needs to be to be able to read and understand what he is reading. The only analogy that I can make is with a car. No, he can’t rebuild the engine, but he can drive the car just as good as his other peers. Plus he has been making honor roll.” (P-42, P-50; Mother, II:  299; Schwing, II: 537-39)

Mother viewed this email as deflecting her concerns and attempting to “try to get [her] to back down.” Ms. Schwing testified that she believed Mother had some anxiety and was “hyperfocusing on what he couldn’t do;” her comments were attempts to put Mother’s mind at ease.[29] At Hearing, Ms. Schwing testified that Desmond might need decoding skills for particular real-word tasks and that oral reading fluency is important, but that encoding skills were less important given the availability of technology. Ms. Frost, on the other hand, testified that she does not agree with Ms. Schwing; she believes decoding skills remain relevant for students as they get older. According to Dr. Brochin, Ms. Schwing’s comment likely demonstrates “a total lack of understanding of dyslexia and what’s required to learn to read and be functional as a reader.” (P-42; Brochin, I: 134; Mother, II: 299-300; Schwing, II: 536-38, 571-74; Frost, III: 854)

41. Desmond’s score on the mid-year ELA i-Ready Diagnostic administered in January 2025 reflected a drop of two grade levels from his score at the beginning of the year. The i-Ready Diagnostic is a computerized assessment of math and reading skills that Dracut uses to predict how a student would score on the MCAS. The i-Ready is dynamic, such that if a student answers a question wrong, i-Ready will provide a lower-level question to try to calibrate the student’s reading level. Following the assessment, students are provided with a pathway to help remediate skills on which they received lower scores. Desmond’s seventh grade general education ELA teacher Danielle Smith[30] testified at Hearing that student performance on the i-Ready can be impacted by many things, including classroom noise and how a student is feeling on a particular day. She also testified that although the i-Ready is supposed to be administered in a 45-minute period, she generally provides three class periods, or an hour and a half, for students to complete the ELA portion of the diagnostic. Following receipt of Desmond’s mid-year i-Ready scores, Ms. Schwing requested that Ms. Smith have him retake the i-Ready, as Ms. Schwing did not believe he had experienced the two-year decline his scores reflected. Although Ms. Smith initially agreed, ultimately she did not have Desmond retake the i-Ready because she believed, upon looking at his data in more detail, that it was accurate and reflected his dyslexia. Ms. Schwing testified that the i-Ready is not standardized and is “not the be-all, end-all,” such that it is not uncommon to have students retake it.[31] According to Dr. Brochin, the i-Ready is problematic, as it reports scores in grade levels rather than age equivalencies. Moreover, it is not an appropriate tool for the diagnosis and identification of children with dyslexia, nor is it reliable and valid for this population of children. (P-43, P-44; Brochin, I: 68-70; Schwing, II: 522-26, 586-87; Smith, III: 632, 691-98)

42. Desmond’s second set of progress reports on his 2024-2025 IEP was issued on or about January 23, 2025. As to his Reading goal, Desmond was reportedly encoding and decoding words at his instructional level (grade 4 and grade 6, respectively) with 75% accuracy; decoding and encoding multisyllabic words (grade 4 to grade 6) with 75% accuracy; and had increased his oral reading fluency to an average of 88 words per minute with more than 80% accuracy. (P-18; S-12) According to Mother, at this point, Desmond was receiving overall grades of As and Bs, though he was receiving lower grades on tests and projects. Moreover, he had developed strategies that assisted him in raising his grades, such as participating in class and requesting that teachers reword questions for him.  (Mother, II: 302-06)

43. Dr. Brochin conducted follow-up academic testing of Desmond on January 21, 2025, observed him at RMS the following day, and authored a second report. In preparation, Dr. Brochin met with Parents and with Desmond. Parents were very distressed at this time, and they reported that they were spending hours after school helping Desmond with homework. Desmond was distressed about being unable to read, and about the fact that his i-Ready scores had dropped. Dr. Brochin also reviewed Dracut’s testing and Desmond’s Amended 2024-2025 IEP, which she found to be piecemeal and insufficiently ambitious for him. She then selected an appropriate test battery, choosing measures different from those conducted by Ms. Tran, to avoid the practice effect.[32] (P-17; Brochin, I: 66-68, 70, 72-73)

Dr. Brochin observed that Desmond’s scores on her evaluation were similar to those reported by Ms. Tran, including scores at the first percentile on measures of Pseudoword Decoding/Nonsense Word Reading. (Brochin, I: 70-72) According to Dr. Brochin, low scores on these measures are particularly concerning, as research demonstrates that nonsense word reading is the “single best indicator of reading disabilities in children.” (Brochin, I: 119) Most of Desmond’s January 2025 scores reflected notable decreases from those he achieved in February 2024, when Dr. Brochin first tested him. On the CTOPP-2, Desmond’s Rapid Naming score fell from the ninth (Rapid Digit Naming) and fifth (Rapid Letter Naming) percentiles, respectively, to the first percentile on both. He scored in the second percentile on the Elision test, which required him to determine what was left of words after specific phonemes were omitted. Desmond’s score on the Word Reading subtest of the WRAT-5 fell in the twenty-third percentile; his score on the Nonsense Word Reading subtest of the Feifer was in the first percentile, significantly lower than the measure of decoding Dr. Brochin had administered in 2024. On the GORT-V, Desmond’s scores had dropped, such that Reading Comprehension fell within the sixteenth percentile, compared with the twenty-seventh percentile in February 2024, and his Oral Reading Index fell within the seventh percentile, compared with the fourteenth percentile 11 months earlier. Because Desmond’s scores on the Word Reading subtest of the WRAT did not capture how labored and slow his reading actually was, Dr. Brochin administered the Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE), a timed measure, to capture additional information. Desmond showed profound weaknesses on the Sight Word Efficiency and Phonemic Decoding subtests, with scores in the first and second percentiles, respectively. His Total Word Reading Efficiency Index fell within the first percentile. According to Dr. Brochin, the difference in Desmond’s ability to read on timed versus untimed measures demonstrates the lack of automaticity, an important indicator of dyslexia. (P-2, P-17; Brochin, I: 74-80; Tran, III: 769-70)

Some of Desmond’s scores increased between Dr. Brochin’s initial evaluation in February 2024 and her academic testing in January 2025. His Phoneme Isolation score on the CTOPP-2 increased from the sixteenth percentile to the thirty-seventh percentile.[33] (Brochin, I: 108-09) Desmond’s Orthographic Fluency also improved. Dr. Brochin explained that this increase confirms that Desmond’s ability to read sight words was a relative strength but was not sufficient to develop the literacy skills that would allow him to be independent in his reading. (P-2, P-17; S-8; Brochin, I: 121-24)

Desmond’s scores on the Written Expression subtests of the WIAT-4 in January 2025 reflected a lack of mastery of the rubric for a basic paragraph structure; moreover, he was unable to write grammatically accurate sentences. His spelling skills were profoundly reduced. (P-17; Brochin, I: 80-81)

On the Child Behavior Checklist, none of the Syndrome Scale scores was significant, though Mother indicated that she is concerned that the compensatory strategies Desmond had learned were causing the District to underestimate his difficulties. (P-17)

Dr. Brochin indicated that she was much more worried about Desmond after her second evaluation of him. (Brochin, I: 81)

44. On January 22, 2025, Dr. Brochin observed Desmond at RMS for approximately two hours. She saw his Social Studies class, his small group reading instruction, and approximately 25 minutes of his 55-minute English Language Arts (ELA) class.[34] Desmond’s ELA class was co-taught by Ms. Smith and Ms. Frost and comprised of 25 students. Dr. Brochin observed a verbal discussion of the death penalty, which she believed was based on material students had read. Desmond participated actively. She noted that the instruction was fast-paced and was not previewed, summarized, or accompanied by any modeling of language production or direct instruction in oral language strategies. Dr. Brochin did not witness any analysis of higher-level sentence structure and inferential interpretation of language, nor any evidence that the curriculum includes ongoing spiraling of earlier taught skills.

Desmond’s Social Studies class was being covered by a substitute teacher. There were 25 students and at least one assistant who was paired with another student. Although the students were rowdy, Desmond remained focused on his work.

Desmond’s reading class, taught by Ms. Frost, was comprised of 11 students and one teaching assistant. Dr. Brochin observed approximately 30-35 minutes of the 55-minute period. During this class, Ms. Frost assessed one student using Fountas and Pinnell, while several students were using i-Ready, and Desmond was in a small group with the teaching assistant, reading from a handout. When these students misread words, the teaching assistant re-read the word correctly. There was no evidence in the small group of language-based instruction. Dr. Brochin observed no direct instruction in reading (including phonological awareness and decoding) or writing, and expressed concern that Ms. Frost was not utilizing “programs or interventions that are prescriptive for the remediation of the specific deficits associated with dyslexia.” The peer cohort in Desmond’s reading group was comprised of students with a wide range of cognitive abilities, literacy skills, and social/emotional functioning.

Dr. Brochin indicated that across all settings, she saw no evidence that Desmond received executive functioning support.

Dr. Brochin opined that these circumstances would not permit the delivery of the specialized instruction Desmond needs. She also expressed concern that all of Desmond’s classes were too large for him to access the individualized instruction he needs to improve his reading and writing skills. Overall, Dr. Brochin concluded that she had seen no evidence of appropriate programming for a child with dyslexia. (P-17, P-64; Brochin, I: 81-92, 127-28; Schwing, II: 531-34; Frost, III: 805-06)

45. On January 31, 2025, Desmond’s Team convened to review Dr. Brochin’s second report. In addition to Parents, the Principal, Ms. Smith, Ms. Frost, and Ms. Schwing attended. The meeting began with each staff member reviewing her credentials.[35] Team members challenged Dr. Brochin’s report, opining that Dr. Brochin was not qualified to diagnose Desmond with a language-based reading disability. Mother felt that Dracut did not fully consider Dr. Brochin’s report. At the meeting, Dracut Team members expressed that they believed the IEP was appropriate for Desmond as he was receiving As and Bs, accessing the curriculum without modifications, comprehending at or slightly below grade level, and making progress on his goals.  The Team Meeting Summary Form includes the following comment: “Most students across the country are one year behind due to the affects [sic] of covid [sic] and most importantly, he is not illiterate.” According to Mother, Ms. Schwing repeated a comment she had made at two prior Team meetings to the effect that individuals need only a fourth or fifth grade reading level to read a newspaper. Parents again asked whether Landmark was an option for Desmond; the principal immediately rejected that option. No changes were proposed to the Amended 2024-2025 IEP as a result of this meeting. (P-19, P-20; S-15; Mother, I: 306-10; Schwing, II:534-37, 577-82)

46. By the end of January or beginning of February, Desmond was feeling frustrated with school; he was having a hard time getting up in the morning. Parents noticed that Desmond’s reading difficulties were interfering with his life outside of school; for example, he could not decode the names of his medications, nor could he read text on the television screen. When his friends texted him, he tended to call them back. (Mother, II: 302)

47. At Hearing, Desmond explained that he gets nervous in school when asked to read and write because he mixes up words and spells words incorrectly. He testified that he gets frustrated that he cannot read what other students can, and that it makes him think he is not smart, even though he knows that he is. Desmond expressed a desire to read fluently and to learn how to spell. (Desmond, I; 205-06, 208, 210, 216-17) Desmond also testified that another student had bullied him because he has a “dent” in his head from wearing headphones in school.[36] (Desmond, I: 209; Mother, II: 314)

48. Desmond testified at Hearing about some of his classes and school assignments. He explained that he was able to use his class notes for the Individual Midpoint Assessment in Science class, and completed another assignment in a group, where he received help from other students. He also explained that sometimes in science class his brain shuts down because there are “too many things going into [his] head.” (S-14; Desmond, I: 211-16) Desmond also discussed a worksheet he completed for Social Studies entitled Pax Romana; he reported that he had to ask his teacher for help reading and simplifying the questions. For a major Social Studies project, Desmond wrote and delivered “The Emperor’s Speech.” He testified at Hearing that he asked his teacher for help in writing and in finding evidence.[37] He then practiced the speech approximately 30 times in front of his family and ultimately memorized it before recording the final version. (P-35; S-14; S-22A, S-22B; Desmond, I: 217-24; Mother, II: 311-12) Desmond described his ELA class as stressful because the teacher reads too fast and he cannot keep up, so he misses information. For a persuasive essay assignment, Ms. Frost assisted him in locating evidence and writing the paragraphs. (S-24; Desmond, I: 225-28)

49. Desmond’s seventh grade social studies teacher, Ryan Bowen,[38] explained at Hearing that students received graphic organizers to assist them in planning their speeches. In this process, he provided individual feedback to Desmond on his graphic organizer, including giving him some examples of what to look for and suggesting that he move one of his examples. Mr. Bowen also read through Desmond’s essay and provided feedback. (Bowen, II: 460-61, 463-65, 496-97, 499-500) Desmond’s ELA teacher, Danielle Smith, testified that Desmond may perceive “receiving feedback as not doing something independently.” (Smith, III: 624, 676-77) 
50. Desmond testified that he believes he is the second lowest reader in his reading group; he stated, “Even though I look like I read it the best, but I’m actually not, because I’m reading, like, really slow just to understand it.” He explained, further, that the other students actually read more fluently than he does but are less engaged and sometimes disruptive. (Desmond, I: 229, 231-32; Mother, II: 311)

51. Mr. Bowen testified that Desmond appeared more comfortable and engaged this school year than he did in sixth grade. Desmond was one of seven or eight students on an IEP in Mr. Bowen’s social studies class of 27 total students.[39] Social studies grades were comprised of several categories: Map Check “Do Now” activities; quizzes; tests, papers, and projects; and homework. Desmond participated enthusiastically in class discussions and did well on map-based activities. Desmond did not express to his teacher that he had difficulty with reading or understanding the material, though he did request clarification regarding some words and their definitions and on writing-based assignments. Generally, when Desmond needed help he would approach Mr. Bowen at his desk or ask the paraprofessional in the classroom one-on-one, rather than in front of his peers. He participated in “partner readings” and appeared to understand the content; he frequently shared with the class what his partner or group members discussed. Mr. Bowen testified that he checked in with Desmond frequently, but that beyond this, Desmond did not require any more assistance than other students. (Bowen, II: 444-53, 456-58, 465-67, 472-73, 482-85, 503) As of the Hearing date, Desmond had a social studies grade in the B-range, which Mr. Bowen testified indicates that he was able to meet a majority of the standards assessed, and this is consistent with what he had observed in class. (S-14; Bowen, II: 461, 470-71, 492) Mr. Bowen also taught Desmond’s Advisory block, which included a social/emotional learning curriculum, collaborative projects, and a weekly academic period; Desmond was able to ask questions about his assignments, advocate for his ideas, and work collaboratively with peers. (Bowen, II: 454-56, 468-69)

52. Ms. Smith co-taught Desmond’s seventh-grade ELA class with Ms. Frost. Ms. Smith and Ms. Frost developed lessons together; typically, Ms. Smith led the instruction, while Ms. Frost circulated, providing any necessary accommodations and explanations to students as needed, although at times they reversed roles. Of the 27 students in this class, nine were on IEPs for a variety of disabilities, including cognitive, neurological, communication, health, and autism. Ms. Smith testified that Desmond generally accessed his accommodations, including “spoken aloud” (which provides that any material above his instructional level is read aloud to him, by a teacher, a paraprofessional, or via an audiobook), graphic organizers, reduced work, and sentence starters. He accessed these accommodations more at the beginning of the school year than toward the end. All students had access to audiobooks, and Desmond did not request information be read aloud to him more than any other student. He did, however, frequently ask Ms. Smith or Ms. Frost to rephrase questions for him. Ms. Frost testified that typically, Desmond did not appear confused during Ms. Smith’s lectures and would ask for clarification or reinforcement with more independent tasks. She also noted that Desmond benefited from a “line reader tool,” which he used to follow along when he was reading and which improved his fluency.

Desmond’s ELA classes generally began with a writing-based “Do Now,” often followed by reading (either together or independently with support, and annotation) and discussion of the reading. At the end of each period, students might be asked to write a paragraph using evidence from the reading; teachers modeled these essays for them as they worked. Students wrote most of each essay in class, then checked in with Ms. Smith or Ms. Frost for feedback.[40] Throughout the year, students proceeded from heavily scaffolded to more independent assignments. Desmond’s ELA class did not include any work on phonics or encoding. ELA grading is similar to social studies, where different assignments carry different point values based on how “intense” they are. Approximately 30% of a student’s overall grade is based on essays and tests; 30% is based on classwork and participation; 25% is quizzes and projects; and 15% is based on homework. Generally, Desmond’s lower grades were on the essay portions of tests.  He did very well, however, on a recent quiz regarding rhetorical appeals. Desmond appeared extremely engaged; he participated in class and generally offered correct answers when he raised his hand. He was responsive to feedback from teachers. Although Desmond struggled with spelling, he was able to format and organize his writing and communicate his thinking, particularly when he could type his responses and use spellcheck. His performance on essays improved throughout the school year. (P-46; P-51, P-52, P-59, P-60, P-62, P-64, P-65, P-66; S-24; Smith, III: 602-26, 638-51, 657-60, 670-71, 710; Frost, III: 791-94, 802-03)

53. Ms. Frost testified that Desmond has made progress in reading this year, as demonstrated by his Fountas and Pinnell Phonics and Word Analysis data. In Oral Reading, in Quarter 1, Desmond read 98% of the words accurately in a Level U (middle of fifth grade) book, with a fluency rate of 84 words per minute, and he answered 75% of the comprehension questions correctly.[41] Ms. Frost explained that Desmond’s fluency is low because “he just takes a little bit more time to decode unfamiliar words. When he isn’t using those decoding strategies, he’s able to read more fluently…I feel like the fluency scores don’t represent his true fluency because of the impact of the decoding time.” As of the date of Hearing, Desmond was reading at Level W, a sixth-grade level, with 98% accuracy, though his fluency was 80 words per minute, far below sixth grade level. Ms. Frost explained that it just took Desmond more time to decode words, but his level was based on accuracy and comprehension. On cross-examination, Ms. Frost testified that reading fluency is based not on accuracy and rate, but “just rate, how many words per minute the student is reading, along with the phrasing that they are using.”  As to encoding, Desmond was working with spelling words up to grade 5. (P-21, P-25; S-13; Frost, III: 814-20, 855)

54. On March 11, 2025, Dracut Director of Student Services Kimberly Lawrence sent an email to Amanda Honan, the special educator teaching Desmond’s Academic Support class, requesting that Ms. Honan provide information regarding Desmond’s performance and the accommodations he was using in class, to assist her with the response she had to provide to the hearing request. According to Ms. Honan’s response and her testimony at the Hearing, she met with Desmond twice per week, once in a group of eight students and once in a group of seven.[42] Both classes were comprised of sixth and seventh graders and aimed to assist students in developing their executive functioning skills to increase independence. Ms. Honan did not provide specialized instruction or use a particular executive functioning curriculum in her Academic Support class; instead, she supported each child based on his individual goals. In her email to Ms. Lawrence, Ms. Honan described Desmond as the “most independent and self-motivated student” in the class. He was aware of classroom routines and did not need much prompting to follow them. He was aware of the assignments he should be working on. At times, he appeared to have difficulty with something but did not ask for help. When he did ask, it was usually on an assignment that required multiple steps. Desmond also requested clarification regarding a concept in ELA and how to fill out a graphic organizer to show examples of that concept. Ms. Honan testified that Desmond’s executive functioning goal was sufficiently ambitious for him and tailored to build his independence. She also testified that he was using the accommodations provided in his IEP (including, recently, text-to-speech) and making progress; at times, he assisted other students in the class by reminding them what they were supposed to be doing. (S-11; Honan, II: 392-40, 411-12, 427-33, 435-39)

55. On March 13, 2025, Ms. Schwing sent an email to several educators who work with Desmond, in preparation for litigation, indicating that she had met that morning with Ms. Lawrence and needed input regarding Desmond. Specifically, Ms. Schwing asked, “Have you ever found him to present as confused, overwhelmed, or anxiety provoked?” Ms. Smith responded by email to Ms. Schwing and Ms. Lawrence on March 14, 2025 regarding Desmond’s ELA performance, explaining that Desmond asks for clarification on the “rare” occasion that he is confused and that she assists Desmond by rephrasing questions, asking prompting questions to help him edit in class, and scribing for him “as he worked through his thinking.”[43] On the same day, Ms. Smith and Ms. Frost began taking data regarding Desmond’s class participation and willingness to ask for help. Around this time, Ms. Lawrence also asked Ms. Smith to provide information regarding how she had explained the discrepancy between Desmond’s i-Ready scores at the beginning and middle of the year. Ms. Smith had told Parents that “for whatever reason, kids just tend to trend a little downward” on the mid-year diagnostic, but that it was encouraging to see that Desmond’s literature comprehension scores had improved. She had also attached an explanation of why Desmond’s vocabulary scores had decreased, which, in her experience, was “not out of the norm” for a student with dyslexia.  (P-45; S-11; S-25; Smith, III: 626-32, 685-86, 699-703; Honan, 427-33; Bowen, III: 497-98)

56. According to Desmond’s third set of Progress Reports, issued on or about April 4, 2025, as of this time he was encoding words up to his instructional level (grade 5) with 75% accuracy in at least 3 out of 5 trials; decoding words at his instructional level (grade 6) with 80% accuracy in at least 3 out of 5 trials; decoding and encoding multisyllabic words (up to grade 6) with 78% accuracy in at least 3 of 5 trials; and was able to increase his oral reading fluency at this instructional level (early grade 6) to an average of 85 words per minute with more than 80% accuracy. He had not met the first, third, or fourth benchmarks on his Reading goal. (P-21; S-12)

57. On April 29, 2025, Ms. Tran observed Desmond in his reading and ELA classes. She testified that she conducted this observation for two reasons: “to see [Desmond] and make sure that he looked happy or okay in class . . . The second reason is for the hearing.” Ms. Tran noted that Desmond participated actively in both classes. In ELA, Desmond sat near the front of the class and asked classmates when he had a question. In reading class, students worked on vowel sounds, filling out worksheets that Ms. Frost would check. Desmond moved around in this class, sometimes standing up and sometimes sitting on the couch. He practiced specific vowel sounds. (Tran, III: 737-39. 766)

58. Dracut convened Desmond’s annual review on May 1, 2025. At the time of the meeting, the District had access to information from Desmond’s teachers regarding his active engagement in classes and his ability to ask for clarification when necessary. His third quarter grades were as follows: ELA: A; Math: A+; Science: A+; Social Studies: B. According to Mother, Ms. Frost opined that Desmond did not qualify for an IEP in reading and that his services should be decreased from three times a week to two. Ms. Frost explained at Hearing that her recommendation was based on Desmond’s progress to that point, though she acknowledged that as of his April 4, 2025, progress report Desmond had not met three of the four Reading goal benchmarks and his oral reading fluency was still in the mid-80s. The Team Meeting Summary Form reflects the Team’s proposal, which aligned with Ms. Frost’s recommendation, as the grid contained two 55-minute periods per week of Reading services with a Special Educator in the C-Grid. Parents did not agree with Ms. Frost’s recommendation. (P-21, P-22; P-47; S-11; Mother, II: 317-19; Schwing, II: 540-44, 584; Frost, III: 867-70)

59. The District proposed a full-inclusion IEP for Desmond for the period from May 1, 2025, to April 30, 2026 (2025-2026 IEP) that is substantially similar to his previous IEP.[44] According to Dracut’s N1, “[t]he Team used the current IEP, data in Aspen, and i-Ready data as a basis for the proposed action.” The 2025-2026 IEP includes Desmond’s grades and summaries of Ms. Frost’s December 2024 WIAT-4 evaluation and the testing performed by the District in May 2024. No mention is made of Dr. Brochin’s 2024 or 2025 testing. The IEP includes a range of accommodations and modifications and goals in Reading, Writing, and Executive Functions. It proposes A-Grid Consultation (1 x 10 minutes per month); B-Grid support in ELA (5 x 55 minutes per week); and C-Grid services in Executive Functioning (2 x 55 minutes per week) and Reading (3 x 55 minutes per week). Ms. Frost testified that the 2025-2026 IEP is more advanced than Desmond’s previous IEP, as his benchmarks are higher.

Desmond’s 2025-2026 Reading goal states that he “will demonstrate improved reading skills, such as encoding, increased fluency, and vocabulary, using at least one preferred strategy as measured by work samples and assessments across the duration of the IEP[, with] 80% accuracy by the end of the IEP.” The Baseline on this goal consists of Desmond’s Fountas and Pinnell level and his i-Ready Diagnostic results.[45] Desmond’s Writing goal aims to improve his mechanics, increase his ability to find and elaborate on evidence to support his propositions, and improve his word choice. (P-47; Frost, III: 823-27, 829, 831-34, 843-44, 869, 872-73)

60. If Desmond were to attend Dracut for eighth grade, he would be in a reading class with Ms. Nelson, the teacher who completed the MaxScholar OG training. (S-19; Frost, III: 789)

61. Ms. Smith testified that a full-inclusion IEP is appropriate for Desmond, given his grades and ability to participate in the general education environment. She did note, however, that she would have liked to have seen a reduced work accommodation. (Smith, III: 636-37, 651-53, 708) Ms. Frost agreed that a full-inclusion setting is appropriate for Desmond. (Frost, III: 830, 859)

62. Parents rejected the 2025-2026 proposed IEP and placement in full. (P-47; Mother, II: 320 Schwing, II: 244)

63. Dr. Brochin testified that Dracut’s proposed 2025-2026 IEP, like the Amended 2024-2025 IEP, is not appropriate for Desmond, as he requires a fully integrated program for a child with severe dyslexia, rather than a piecemeal approach that lacks intensity, appropriate peer grouping, and specialization. Moreover, the goals are not ambitious, given Desmond’s cognitive abilities, work ethic, and “desire and desperation to learn to read and write.” (Brochin, I: 93)

64. Desmond has been accepted to Landmark for the 2025-2026 school year. (Mother, III: 320)

65. Landmark is a DESE-approved program. The middle school serves approximately 135 students, with 45 rising eighth graders. Most students have average to above average intelligence, particularly in the area of reasoning. Students are grouped with peers with similar learning profiles and areas of need. Landmark’s highly structured middle school program consists of science, social studies, math, and four classes focused on the domains of literacy: a one-to-one reading tutorial; a language arts class that focuses on written expression; a literature class; and an oral expression class. Science and social studies classes are comprised of no more than eight students with one teacher. All classes employ language-based approaches, including explicit instruction and repetition. Reading is taught through research-based programs such as LiPS. Written expression is taught at the word, sentence, and paragraph levels, addressing spelling, grammar, sentence structure, and planning. A multisensory program called Woodin Math is used for math instruction. Landmark employs approximately 90 teachers, all of whom engage in intensive literacy training before they begin and ongoing training throughout the year. Executive functioning is taught through embedded study skills instruction and consistent practices, such as note-taking, across different subject areas, as well as in advisory blocks. At Landmark, tutorials are provided one-on-one to enable students with severe reading difficulties to access individualized, targeted instruction. All teachers collect data on students on a daily basis, through a diagnostic and prescriptive approach; students’ progress toward their goals is monitored, and informal testing batteries are administered regularly. Additionally, an annual battery of formalized assessments is administered, including six subtests of the KTEA and the GORT. (Sebens, I: 178-94)

66. Megan Sebens, the elementary/middle school academic dean at Landmark,[46] reviewed Desmond’s records and concluded that Landmark is appropriate for him given his cognitive profile, including strengths in vocabulary and reasoning and weaknesses in reading and writing.[47] There is space for Desmond at Landmark for the 2025-2026 school year. (P-31, P-32; Sebens, I: 196-200)

67. At Hearing, Ms. Sebens also testified about her work within Landmark’s outreach program with at least 15 different school districts to help support students with language-based learning differences within districts. According to Ms. Sebens, building a quality language-based program in a public school takes several years because it entails developing the infrastructure and identifying both the right faculty and the appropriate student cohort. (Sebens, I: 177-78)    

68. Desmond expressed a desire to attend Landmark because he feels he would learn more and feel less different from the other students. (Desmond, I: 233-34) Mother testified that Landmark would be appropriate for Desmond because it uses the framework he is using with Ms. O’Neil, which he “loves,” and because he would be learning from teachers who understand him, alongside peers with similar profiles. (Mother, II: 320-21)

69. Ms. O’Neil testified that based on her work with Desmond, she believes he is a good fit for the school. (O’Neil, I: 157-59) According to Dr. Brochin, Landmark is appropriate for Desmond. (Brochin, I: 93)

70. Ms. Frost testified that Desmond would not be a good fit for the substantially separate ELA class she teaches, as he is “extraordinarily more advanced than” the highest student in it.[48] (Frost, III: 878-79)

3. DISCUSSION[49]

It is not disputed that Desmond is a student with a disability who is eligible for special education services under state and federal law. To determine whether Parents are entitled to a decision in their favor, I must consider substantive and procedural legal standards governing special education. As the party challenging the status quo in this matter, Parents bear the burden of proof. [50] To prevail, Parents must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Dracut failed to propose IEPs reasonably calculated to provide Desmond with a FAPE for the 2024-2025 and/or 2025-2026 school year.

1. Legal Standard: The Substantive Right to a Free Appropriate Public Education in the Least Restrictive Environment[51]

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was enacted “to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education . . . designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment and independent living.”[52] To fulfill its substantive obligations pursuant to federal law, a school district is required to develop and implement an IEP tailored to a child’s unique academic and functional needs.[53] To provide a FAPE, the IEP must be individually designed and reasonably calculated to confer a meaningful benefit.[54] It must include, “at a bare minimum, the child’s present level of educational attainment, the short- and long-term goals for his or her education, objective criteria with which to measure progress toward those goals, and the specific services to be offered.”[55] These elements should incorporate parental concerns; the student’s strengths, disabilities, recent evaluations; and the child’s potential for growth.[56]  The goals contained in an IEP should be “appropriately ambitious.”[57] An IEP “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances” will be substantively sound.[58] 

Under state and federal special education law, a school district has an obligation to provide the services that comprise FAPE in the least restrictive environment.[59] To the maximum extent appropriate, therefore, a student with disabilities must be educated with his peers who do not have disabilities, such that “removal . . . from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services, cannot be achieved satisfactorily.”[60]  “The goal, then, is to find the least restrictive educational environment that will accommodate the child’s legitimate needs.”[61] For most children, a FAPE “will involve integration in the regular classroom and individualized special education calculated to achieve advancement from grade to grade.”[62] However, when a student cannot receive a FAPE in this setting, a more restrictive environment, such as a private day school, is appropriate, as “the desirability of mainstreaming must be weighed in concert with the [IDEA]’s mandate for educational improvement.”[63]

Finally, evaluating an IEP requires viewing it as a “a snapshot, not a retrospective. In striving for ‘appropriateness, an IEP must take into account what     was . . . objectively reasonable . . . at the time the IEP was promulgated.’”[64]

2. Analysis

Here, Parents argue that the 2024-2025 IEP, as amended in December 2024, and the 2025-2026 IEP proposed by Dracut for Desmond were not and are not reasonably calculated to provide him with a FAPE. They seek compensatory services for the 2024-2025 school year and an Order that the District place Desmond at Landmark for the 2025-2026 school year. Dracut contends that both IEPs and their corresponding placements were and are reasonably calculated to provide Desmond with a FAPE in the LRE. For the reasons below, I find that the IEPs proposed by Dracut for the relevant time were not and are not reasonably calculated to provide Desmond with a FAPE. Dracut must provide compensatory services and locate or create a program for the 2025-2026 school year, as described in detail below.

1. Desmond’s Profile

The uncontroverted evidence demonstrates that Desmond has a significant SLD in Reading Fluency, Basic Reading Skills, and Written Expression, in addition to ADHD, and that his higher-order reasoning, problem-solving, and verbal comprehension abilities are intact. Desmond is a diligent student who enjoys participating in class and earns good grades; however, his persistent difficulty with segmenting phonemes and reading nonsense words suggests that he struggles with the relationship between letters and sounds. He performs poorly on timed reading tasks due to his lack of automaticity, as evidenced by his low scores on measures of oral fluency. Desmond’s double deficit dyslexia impacts his ability to encode, as demonstrated by his scores on standardized tests and several of the handwritten work samples submitted into evidence.  When Dr. Brochin, an experienced neuropsychologist who testified credibly regarding Desmond’s profile, evaluated him in the spring of sixth grade, she was “stunned” by his deficits. She recommended that they be remediated in a fully integrated, full-time, language-based program with teachers who have training and experience working with students with dyslexia. She recommended, further, that Desmond attend classes of no more than six to eight students and daily one-to-one Language Arts tutorials to focus on decoding, reading text for fluency, reading comprehension, and all aspects of written language, through a highly structured, multisensory, research-based program such as OG; that his tutorial incorporate a research-based, systematic multisensory program to support development of phonological processing, such as LiPS, and a program designed to improve oral reading fluency.

Dracut does not dispute Desmond’s diagnosed disabilities or the results of Dr. Brochin’s standardized tests, which are similar to the results of the District’s cognitive and academic testing using standardized measures. However, Dracut emphasizes Desmond’s grades, progress through levels on Fountas and Pinnell (despite reading rates far below expectations), and class participation as indicative of his ability to access and make progress in the general education curriculum. In fact, school psychologist Ms. Tran testified that standardized test scores are not foundational to the development of an IEP. Instead, Ms. Tran focuses on Desmond’s ability to decipher the meaning of text, even while acknowledging that this may occur through context, reasoning skills, or other strategies rather than decoding. Desmond’s teachers assert that he is able to keep up with his classes as long as he is provided with the accommodations outlined in his IEP. According to Dr. Brochin, however, Desmond works incredibly hard to guess the meaning of a passage, utilizing context clues and his excellent reasoning skills, which are underscored by his intact cognitive abilities. These adaptive strategies, which require a significant amount of energy, mask the impact of Desmond’s inability to decode on his school performance. Ms. Tran’s observations of Desmond during her evaluation support this theory. All of Desmond’s teachers testified that he requests clarification and rephrasing in class, and Ms. Frost testified that once he is familiar with a word, he understands it and is able to read it. None of the District’s witnesses suggested that Desmond can read unfamiliar words fluently, though Ms. Schwing disputed the importance of this ability for someone Desmond’s age. Mother testified, however, that Desmond cannot read the labels on his medication.

Desmond is aware of his struggles with reading. He has a deep desire to learn, and his testimony reflects his excitement about the breakthroughs he has experienced through his work with Ms. O’Neil using evidence-based, sequential, systematic reading curricula such as LiPS.

2. Dracut’s Evidence in Support of Proposed IEPs is Unconvincing

Despite overwhelming evidence of Desmond’s severe reading disability, as described credibly by Dr. Brochin and Ms. O’Neil, experts in their respective fields, his failure to meet some of the benchmarks associated with his 2024-2025 Reading goals, and several declining scores on standardized tests between February 2024 and January 2025, Dracut insists that Desmond is making adequate progress in a full-inclusion placement. According to the District, the following constellation of services is sufficient to meet Desmond’s needs, as long as he has access to his accommodations: (a) a co-taught ELA class; (b) fewer than three hours per week of reading instruction with a special education teacher (who has not completed training in any specialized reading programs), in heterogenous groups of nine to eleven students, none of whom has a SLD in Reading; and (c) fewer than two hours per week of academic support, also in a heterogenous group. In reaching this conclusion, again, the District relies heavily on Desmond’s grades, which are subjective, and his i-Ready scores, which Dr. Brochin explained, credibly, are not reliable for students with dyslexia. Moreover, according to Desmond’s ELA teacher, Danielle Smith, her students receive significantly more time to complete the i-Ready Diagnostic than the prescribed time, and it is not an anomaly for a student to be asked to retake it if a teacher (or even an administrator who does not work directly with that student) believes that a score does not reflect that student’s abilities.

Desmond’s reading services were provided during the 2024-2025 school year by a special educator, Emily Frost, who testified that reading fluency is based not on accuracy and fluency, but just “rate . . . along with the phrasing that they are using.” Ms. Frost testified, further, that although she had told Parents she was providing Orton-Gillingham instruction (and in response to their concern that this was not happening, began telling students that a particular activity was OG), she did not complete the MaxScholar training, was not aware of the scope and sequence or the core principles of OG, and has no training or experience in or with programs designed to remediate dyslexia. Moreover, despite Desmond’s persistent difficulty with phonological awareness, sound/symbol correspondence, and reading fluency, in December 2024 and again in May 2025, Ms. Frost recommended decreasing his reading services.

Ms. Tran’s initial reports of her cognitive and academic evaluations of Desmond contained some irregularities; at Hearing, she acknowledged that her testing was not completed in the one day listed on her report. She also testified that she did not provide recommendations in her report because she wanted to give her colleagues flexibility in designing Desmond’s program, and that she did not believe she should have input into his IEP since she would not be providing his services.

RMS Team Chair Christine Schwing demonstrated both through emails to Parents, beginning in the spring of 2024, and in her testimony, either a lack of understanding of special education procedures and SLDs in reading, or a willingness to ignore what she knew. After initially informing Parents that Dr. Brochin’s report triggered Dracut’s Child Find obligations, she backtracked and told them that they had to pursue a 504 Plan for Desmond before they could request an IEP. The written summary for the Team meeting chaired by Ms. Schwing in May 2024, when the District proposed Desmond’s first IEP, includes a statement that special education regulations do not require schools to place or provide language-based programs. Faced with Parents’ concerns about the quality of Desmond’s reading instruction, Ms. Schwing told Parents either incorrectly or disingenuously that Ms. Frost was a certified reading teacher. She then challenged Dr. Brochin’s expertise, suggesting that she was not qualified to diagnose language-based learning disabilities, though Ms. Schwing did not suggest that Desmond be evaluated by someone she believed was qualified. Essentially, Ms. Schwing consistently minimized Parents’ concerns about Desmond’s struggles to read and spell, demonstrating, as Dr. Brochin explained, a complete lack of understanding of dyslexia and what is required to be a functional reader.

3. The IEPs Proposed for the 2024-2025 School Year IEP Were Not Reasonably Calculated to Provide Desmond with a FAPE in the LRE

Parents have demonstrated, through the weight of the credible evidence, that Desmond requires more intensive services to receive a FAPE than those proposed in the IEPs in effect during the 2024-2025 school year. These IEPs provided for 135 minutes per week of C-Grid reading instruction, delivered in groups of nine to eleven students with a range of cognitive profiles (at times delivered by a paraprofessional, and at no time delivered by someone with training or experience remediating dyslexia); 90 minutes per week of C-Grid executive functioning support in an academic support class; and B-Grid support in a co-taught ELA class. Although Dracut may not have viewed Desmond’s dyslexia as requiring a fully integrated language-based program as of May 2024, when he was first found eligible for special education, or in November, when his first Progress Reports suggested that he was approaching benchmarks,[65] at some point during his seventh-grade year it became apparent that Desmond was not making adequate progress in light of his cognitive abilities. The evidence shows that although the i-Ready Diagnostic is not an accurate measure for dyslexic students, Dracut relies heavily on it, citing it as a reliable indicator of student progress in Desmond’s IEPs and in the testimony of various staff members. Rather than view the significant drop in Desmond’s i-Ready scores that occurred between September 2024 and January 2025 as indicative of a need for additional or different services, or at least a need for additional data regarding his progress, Ms. Schwing decided that the scores did not accurately reflect Desmond’s actual level and requested that his teacher have him retake the test. Later that same month, Dracut received Dr. Brochin’s second report; for the most part, Desmond’s scores on reading measures were lower than they had been 11 months earlier, with multiple scores falling in the first and second percentiles. In response to this information, Dracut proposed no changes to the IEP. It should have been evident no later than the Team meeting on January 31, 2025 that Desmond’s IEP was not reasonably calculated to provide him with a FAPE.[66] Yet when the Team convened in May 2025 for Desmond’s annual review, at which time he had not met all of the benchmarks in his Reading goal, Dracut proposed, essentially, a continuation of the same full-inclusion IEP.

Based on the totality of the evidence before me, I conclude that although Desmond appears, on the outside, to keep up with the material presented in class, he is not making effective progress in reading. His classroom performance is a tribute to his hard work, determination, perseverance, and cognitive abilities, which permit him to use context clues and workarounds to offset his inability to decode anywhere near age level expectations. Similarly, Desmond continues to struggle with written expression, particularly spelling, though word processors mask some of this difficulty. I give significant evidentiary weight to the expert opinions of Dr. Brochin and Ms. O’Neil, both of whom indicated that given the severity of Desmond’s double deficit dyslexia, he needs a fully integrated, cohesive, language-based program across all content areas to make effective progress.[67] The program should serve students with at least average cognitive ability and intact social/emotional skills in small classes of six to eight students. It must include daily individual specialized literacy instruction with a teacher or tutor who is trained and experienced in multisensory, structured, sequential, and evidence-based methodologies designed to remediate dyslexia. Executive functioning instruction should be embedded across the curriculum. To benefit meaningfully from this program, particularly given his awareness of – and discomfort with – his difficulty reading, Desmond should be educated alongside peers with similar cognitive profiles, notably SLDs in reading and written expression.

For Desmond, the benefits of mainstreaming simply do not outweigh the disadvantages.[68]

As I have concluded that Parents have met their burden to establish that the IEPs proposed by Dracut for the 2024-2025 school year were not reasonably calculated to provide Desmond with a FAPE, Dracut must provide compensatory services for this failure. Not much evidence was presented on this issue. As such, the parties are directed to meet within 14 days of the issuance of this decision to develop a compensatory services plan, which might include participation in a language-based summer program and/or private tutoring with someone who is trained and experienced in sequential, structured, multisensory, research-based approaches designed to remediate dyslexia.

4. The IEP Proposed for the 2025-2026 School Year is Not Reasonably Calculated to Provide Desmond With a FAPE, Nor Can It Be Modified to Provide Him with a FAPE Within Dracut

For the reasons outlined above, I find that the proposed IEP dated May 1, 2025 to April 30, 2026 is not appropriate for Desmond. I turn next to the question of whether this IEP can be modified such that it is appropriate for him.

Dracut has acknowledged that what it has proposed for Desmond is not a language-based program, and the District does not believe he requires one in order to receive a FAPE. I disagree.

The evidence shows that Dracut does not have a fully integrated, cohesive, language-based program with the components described in Section II(B)(iii), above. Because I have found that Desmond requires a fundamentally different program than the one proposed in the 2025-2026 full-inclusion IEP, and not simply additional or different services or a peer cohort, I conclude that this IEP cannot be modified to provide the program Desmond needs to make effective progress.[69]

5. Dracut Must Locate or Create an Appropriate Language-Based Program for Desmond within Thirty Days

From the evidence before me, it appears that Landmark may be an appropriate placement for Desmond. Ms. Sebens testified credibly about the program and the training all faculty members receive. I also credit Ms. O’Neil’s testimony that Landmark is a good fit for Desmond, as she is familiar with Landmark and has been working regularly with Desmond one-to-one for over six months. Moreover, Desmond has been accepted for the 2025-2026 school year, and Landmark has space for him.

After concluding that a prospective IEP is inappropriate and cannot be modified to provide a student with a FAPE, I must, however, give Dracut the opportunity to locate or create a program that meets Desmond’s needs.[70] I note that Ms. Sebens testified, credibly, based on her experience helping at least 15 different school districts support students with language-based learning differences in in-district programs, that building a quality language-based program in a public school takes years. There is no evidence before me that Dracut currently has staff with the necessary training, expertise, and/or experience to develop or teach a language-based program.[71]

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

After reviewing the record in its entirety in the context of relevant case law, I conclude that Parents have met their burden to establish that the IEPs proposed for Desmond between May 2024 and the present were not and are not reasonably calculated to provide him with a FAPE.

The parties are directed to meet within 14 days of the issuance of this decision to develop a compensatory services plan to compensate for the inappropriateness of the Amended 2024-2025 IEP and the 2025-2026 IEP during the period from January 31, 2025 through the end of the 2024-2025 school year. This plan may include, by way of example, a language-based summer program or private tutoring with a trained and experienced professional who utilizes sequential, structured, multisensory, and research-based approaches designed to remediate dyslexia.

          Within 30 days of the issuance of this decision, Dracut must locate or create a fully integrated, cohesive language-based program across all content areas for Desmond for the 2025-2026 school year that includes the following components: small classes of six to eight students; daily individual specialized literacy instruction delivered by someone trained and experienced in multisensory, structured, sequential, evidence-based methodologies that have been designed to remediate dyslexia; executive functioning instruction embedded across the curriculum; and a peer cohort of students with cognitive profiles similar to Desmond’s.

By the Hearing Officer:

/s/  Amy M. Reichbach

Amy M. Reichbach, Hearing Officer

Dated: July 1, 2025

---

[1] “Desmond” is a pseudonym chosen by the Hearing Officer to protect the confidentiality of the Student in documents available to the public.

[2] Parents also submitted Exhibits P-A, P-B, P-B2, P-C, and P-D, which were marked for identification.

[3] Dracut also submitted Exhibit S-A, which was marked for identification.

[4] I have carefully considered all evidence presented in this matter. I make findings of fact with respect to the documents and testimony, however, only as necessary to resolve the issues presented.

[5] At some point in first or second grade, Desmond’s prescription was switched to Focalin. (P-2)

[6] Amanda Honan, the Academic Support teacher who co-taught Desmond’s math class, has a master’s degree in special education, moderate disabilities, and has been teaching special education in Dracut for four years. She is certified in moderate disabilities, pre-K thorough 8^th grade. Ms. Honan indicated that students often solved word problems together in groups, following the i-Ready curriculum. She observed that Desmond participated, did well in class, and was good at following routines and expectations. (S-19; Honan, II: 382-90)

[7] Dr. Brochin has a master’s degree in psychology, a master’s degree in clinical psychopharmacology, and a doctoral degree in school psychology. She is a licensed psychologist in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. (P-1; Brochin, I: 24, 32)

[8] In her private practice, Dr. Brochin employs the Boston Process Approach of neuropsychological assessment. According to Dr. Brochin, this approach entails consideration of qualitative data such as the person’s emotional state, as well as his performance on prior tests, and involves administering subtests of various standardized measures that provide “the most nuanced and detailed interpretation and understanding of your patient’s functioning,” as opposed to administering all tests from a single test battery. (Brochin, I: 27-29) In addition to assessing a child’s cognitive functioning; memory and learning; attention/executive functioning skills; reading, writing, math, and other academic skills, when Dr. Brochin conducts a neuropsychological evaluation, she incorporates assessments of a child’s expressive language, phonological processing, and social and emotional functioning. (Brochin, I: 35)

[9] In addition to meeting with Parents, speaking with Desmond’s private therapist, interviewing Desmond, reviewing records, and reviewing Systems/Medical History, Dr. Brochin administered the following: Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – Fifth Edition (WISC-5); Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning – Third Edition (WRAML-3), selected subtests; Boston Naming Test – Second Edition; Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing – Second Edition (CTOPP), selected subtests; Rey Complex Figure Test; Delis-Kaplan Executive Functioning System, Trail Making Test (D-KEFS); Weschler Individual Achievement Test – Fourth Edition (WIAT-4), selected subtests, Gray Oral Reading Tests – Fifth Edition (GORT-V), Form B; Child Behavior Checklist; Teacher’s Report Form; Beck Youth Inventories – Second Edition (BYI-2), selected inventories; Sentence Completion Test – Child; Parent Interview: Developmental, Academic, and Socia/Emotional History. (P-2; Brochin, I: 37, 102-04, 126)

[10] Dr. Brochin noted in her report that Desmond was prescribed Focalin XR 20 on school days and Focalin 5 milligrams, as needed, at the end of the day to assist with attention. At Hearing, however, she testified that she did not believe Desmond was taking any medication to assist with attention or other ADHD symptoms at this time, and/or that Parents were concerned that his prescription was not very effective. (P-2; Brochin, I: 100, 133)

[11] Dr. Brochin testified that she did not administer the phonological memory subtests of the CTOPP because she had measured Desmond’s phonological memory through the digit span subtest on the WISC-V and the rote verbal, narrative verbal, and auditory sequential memory subtests of the WRAML-3. (Brochin, I: 46-47)

[12] At Hearing, Dr. Brochin explained that although Desmond might participate in class discussion in a general education classroom, he could not execute the tasks of the curriculum independently, and such programming would not remediate his skill deficits. (Brochin, I: 131-32)

[13] Ms. Schwing has been the special education Team chair at RMS for six years. In this role, she manages evaluations and reevaluations; chairs meetings for students in substantially separate programs and at times, chairs other meetings that “might be more challenging.” She supervises students’ progress reports and ensures that all regulations are followed. Prior to her current position, Ms. Schwing was a Team chair at another public school district in Massachusetts and prior to that, she taught special education in both Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Ms. Schwing has been certified to teach special education for 22 years. She has a master’s degree in education in learning disabilities, is certified as a Building Principal, and holds a Certificate of Advanced Graduate Study (CAGS) in special education administration. Ms. Schwing has administered achievement testing utilizing the WIAT-4; the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement (KTEA); the Woodcock-Johnson (W-J); the CTOPP; the GORT-5; the Test of Written Language; the CASL; the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test; and the EVT-5. She has also received training in and administered several different reading programs, including Read Naturally and DIBELS. (S-19; Schwing, II: 505-09) At Hearing, Ms. Schwing listed several programs that Dracut uses to teach reading, including Sonday, OG, an intervention portion of Harcourt Mifflin, i-Ready, Edmark, Lexia, and Words Their Way. Asked on cross-examination whether she understood that Sonday is a general education program, Ms. Schwing testified, “I mean, you could say anything is general ed[ucation]…you could say [Wilson Fundations] is a general ed program, but it’s actually something that was designed for poor readers and could be implemented in a special ed[ucation] setting to a certain prescription for a student.” (Schwing, II: 549)

[14] At Hearing, Ms. Schwing testified that although she had been trained that an outside evaluation triggers Child Find obligations and prompts the District do its own testing, in this case, she had communicated to Parents that “[a]n outside evaluation [did] not trigger a special education team meeting or assessment but that it ha[d] to go to the 504 team and building administration first,” because she had received this information from Kimberly Lawrence, Dracut’s Director of Student Services. (Schwing, II: 553-54)

[15] Desmond’s new psychiatrist wrote a letter to Landmark in support of his application. (P-8; Mother, II: 364-68)

[16] Ms. Tran has a master’s degree and an education specialist degree, both in school psychology. She has worked for approximately nine years as a school psychologist, seven of which have been in Dracut. Ms. Tran holds certification as a school psychologist from the National Association of School Psychologists and licensure as an Educational Psychologist from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. She earned a “Licensed Educational Psychologist” credential in 2021. According to her resume, Ms. Tran has proficiency in administering a number of testing instruments across cognitive, social/emotional, and achievement domains, including the D-KEFS, RIAS-II, WISC-V, WRAML-2, the Conners – Fourth Edition (Conners-4), Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function – Second Edition (BRIEF-2), KTEA-3, WIAT-III, WJ-IV Achievement, and WRAT-5. She evaluates approximately 125 students annually. (S-19; Tran, III: 713-15, 740)

[17] Ms. Tran’s evaluation consisted of Student, Parent, and Teacher Interviews; Observations; the Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales – Second Edition (RIAS-2); the Conners-4); and the BRIEF-2. (P-4)

[18] However, on cross-examination, Ms. Tran acknowledged that it took more than one day to complete Desmond’s KTEA-3 testing. (P-29; Tran, III: 741-45)

[19] Parents’ exhibits included emails from Ms. Tran asking that a seventh-grade special education teacher complete the testing she had begun and that another individual complete the classroom observation. (P-6, P-29; S-2; Tran, 743-45, 783-85)

[20] When Parents received Desmond’s academic achievement report, they emailed Ms. Tran to indicate that she had either omitted or incorrectly listed several percentile rankings. Ms. Tran issued a revised report. (P-7; Mother, II: 337-38; Tran, III: 747)

[21] On cross-examination, Ms. Tran testified that evaluations are just one piece of data in the IEP process but are not necessarily foundational. (Tran, III: 762-63) She also suggested that standardized testing “happens on a certain day and time and gives us a snapshot of [a student’s] reading abilities…just a snapshot” and that “a student’s capability cannot be defined by his scores” on standardized testing. (Tran, III: 773-5)

[22] This evaluation consisted of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, 5^th Edition (PPVT-5); the Expressive Vocabulary Test, 3^rd Edition (EVT-3); the Oral and Written Language Scales – Second Edition (OWLS-II); the Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language, 2^nd Edition (CASL-2) – Sentence Expression; and Informal Observations. (P-5)

[23] At the Team meeting and again at Hearing, Ms. Schwing challenged Dr. Brochin’s qualifications to diagnose Desmond with a language impairment, given that she is not a speech/language pathologist. (Schwing, II: 516-17, 556)  Ms. Tran also testified that Ms. Pattangelli had not diagnosed Desmond with a communication disorder, nor had she observed any specific language tests in Dr. Brochin’s report. (Tran, III: 732-33, 775-76)

[24] Desmond’s Executive Functions goal did not contain a baseline performance level, but the benchmarks each aimed for successful performance in 3 out of 5 opportunities (i.e., “Given direct instruction and faded support, [Desmond] will select/use strategies (graphic organizer, reference sheets) to increase accuracy and independence in 3 out of 5 opportunities;” and “Given direct instruction and decreased prompts, [Desmond] will access needed resources to independently complete class work and homework assignments in 3 out of 5 opportunities”). (P-10; S-6; Honan, II: 414-23)

[25] Ms. Frost testified that Parents sent several emails to herself and/or Ms. Schwing regarding Desmond’s progress, and they all had “the same consensus of the concern. However, every time I got an email or notice that they were concerned, I tried to change how I taught reading, to appeal to the Parents, to show that, no, we are doing Orton-Gillingham, we are doing specialized instruction. Yeah. It just seemed like everything I did wasn’t working for them.”  (Frost, III: 834-36)

[26] There is no evidence before me regarding a November progress meeting.

[27] Desmond testified at Hearing that he receives a text-to-speech accommodation, utilizing headphones, for MCAS examinations, where the software reads aloud the instructions, word problems, and possible answers. He also uses this accommodation for i-Ready. (Desmond, I: 207-08)

[28] Ms. Schwing appended to her email state regulations regarding class sizes for students with special needs in small pull-out settings. (P-50)

[29] At Hearing, Ms. Schwing testified that the purpose of reading is to comprehend, and that Desmond’s ability in that area is in the average range. (Schwing, II: 538-39)

[30] Ms. Smith has been teaching for 14 years and just finished her tenth year at Dracut, where she currently teaches seventh grade ELA and serves as the content lead for ELA curriculum, grades 6 through 8. She holds a DESE professional license in ELA, grades 5 through 8, and an initial license in ELA, grades 9 through 12. Ms. Smith has a master’s degree in curriculum and instruction, with a concentration in literacy; she also has a reading specialist certificate, though she has not taken the MTEL to become a reading specialist nor is she certified in any programs specifically designed to target the remediation of dyslexia. (S-19; Smith, III: 597-99, 657-68)

[31] Ms. Smith used similar language about the i-Ready, explaining that it is not “the end-all, be-all,” but something to be used as one data point in assessing students. (Smith, III: 622) She also acknowledged that the i-Ready is a less accurate measure of a student’s skills than the WIAT-4 or GORT-5. (Smith, III: 693-94)

[32] In addition to the Child Behavior Checklist, Review of Records and Systems/Medical History, and Clinical Interview, Dr. Brochin administered two subtests of Phonological Awareness and two tests of Rapid Naming from the CTOPP-2; selected writing subtests from the WIAT-4; the Word Reading subtest from the Wide Range Achievement Test – Fifth Edition (WRAT-5); the Nonsense Word Decoding subtest from the Feifer Assessment of Reading (Feifer); the Test of Word Reading Efficiency – Second Edition (TOWRE-2); and Form A from the GORT-V. (P-12; Brochin, I: 71, 74, 120-22) Asked on cross-examination why she administered only one subtest of 15 on the Feifer and four subtests of the 12 on the CTOPP-2, Dr. Brochin explained that administering a “well-thought out battery of tests” that are standardized and have psychometric adequacy with respect to reliability and validity is consistent with the Boston Process Approach to neuropsychological assessment in which she was trained. (Brochin, I: 120-21)

[33] Ms. Frost’s testing had also revealed an increase in Word Reading from a standard score of 84 in February 2024 to 89 in December 2024. (S-8; Brochin, I: 121-23)

[34] Dr. Brochin did not request to speak with any of Desmond’s teachers in connection with her observation. (Brochin, I: 104-05, 129)

[35] Ms. Schwing testified that staff reviewed their qualifications “because of the tone of [Dr. Brochin’s] observation and the letter, [which] kind of implied that we weren’t professionals . . . [and] it was important for people to be aware that we are highly trained as well and we are highly knowledgeable as well.” (Schwing, II: 579-80)

[36] Desmond and Mother also testified that Desmond had been bullied repeatedly, including for believing in Santa. (Desmond, I: 209, 233, 238-40; Mother, II: 313, 327-28) Ms. Tran recalled these incidents differently, saying that Desmond had participated in calling another student names and that he had also pushed another student, someone he considered a friend, in the hallway. As such, according to Ms. Tran, these incidents are less bullying and more “misunderstandings, middle school and mischief.” (Tran, III: 781-82) Ms. Frost also testified that she had not noticed Desmond being picked on in class but had seen him “messing with” another boy with whom he is friends. (Frost, III: 808-09) A Bullying Incident Report dated May 6, 2025 suggests that another student made inappropriate, offensive comments to Desmond on April 8, 2025 but stopped this behavior once spoken to by an administrator the same day. Dracut concluded that the evidence did not support a finding that bullying had occurred. (S-26) I do not make any findings relative to this.

[37] Although Mother contacted Ms. Schwing in November 2024 about Desmond’s teachers giving him answers and a paraprofessional even providing an answer for a test, she acknowledged that Desmond had never implied to her that teachers were trying to help him cheat. (P-38; Mother, II: 353)

[38] Mr. Bowen has a DESE initial license in history, grades 5 through 12 and a master’s degree in education in curriculum/instruction: history. He has been working in Dracut for four years, three of which have been in his current position. Mr. Bowen initially met Desmond in sixth grade, as his track coach. (Bowen, II: 440-41

[39] Mr. Bowen’s testimony to this effect conflicts with Dracut’s interrogatory answer that five students on IEPs, with varying disabilities, were in this class. (P-46, P-49, P-53, P-55, P-56, P-57, P-58; S-19; Bowen, II: 477-78)

[40] Ms. Frost testified that she sometimes read Desmond’s work back to him when checking in, then asked whether it made sense; this helped him to identify errors in his work. (Frost, III: 803-04)

[41] Ms. Frost testified that it was her recollection from her training that reading rates in the 80 range were in the third-grade level. She appeared surprised to learn that according to a Fountas and Pinnell chart of expected oral reading rates at grade and instructional levels, a rate of 75 words per minute corresponded with end of first grade, levels J-K, whereas the expected oral reading rate at levels T, U, and V (end of fifth grade) was 140-180 words per minute. (P-25; Frost, III: 865-66)

[42] It is unclear how many of these students are on IEPs, as Ms. Honan testified that all students in Academic Support have an IEP, but Dracut’s interrogatory answer identified, and provided IEPs for, only two students with IEPs in Academic Support, one with a Neurological disability and one with a Communication Disorder. (P-46, P-49, P-51, P-52; Honan, II: 409-11)

[43] At Hearing, Ms. Smith clarified that when she wrote that she had “scribed” for Desmond, she meant that she had typed out what she heard him saying, then had him go back to revise and edit what she had written. (Smith, III: 711)

[44] The IEP proposed by Dracut for the period from May 1, 2025 to April 30, 2026 (2025-2026 IEP) does not reflect the decrease in reading services recommended by Ms. Frost and contemplated by the Team. (P-47)

[45] When she wrote the Baseline section of this goal, Ms. Frost also referenced several strategies she had taught or used with Desmond to assist him in breaking out phonemes and with phonological awareness, including Simultaneous Oral Spelling (SOS), syllabification, and Elkonin boxes. Using these strategies, Desmond was able to spell words with 76% accuracy and sound out words with 80% accuracy. He was also reading 85 words per minute at his instructional level. The benchmarks associated with Desmond’s Reading goal proposed that he would be able to encode words at his instructional reading level with 80% accuracy; increase his reading rate to at least 100 words per minute independently 80% of the time; and correctly identify and define at least three new vocabulary words per week using preferred strategies, independently, 80% of the time. In formulating this goal, Ms. Frost did not conduct any testing of Desmond’s reading comprehension under timed conditions, nor did she add a benchmark to address this skill area or a specific decoding benchmark. (P-47; Frost, III: 823-27, 829, 831-34, 843-44, 869, 872-73)

[46] Ms. Sebens holds a master’s degree in special education, moderate disabilities. She holds DESE professional licensure in special education, moderate disabilities grades 5 through 12 and is also licensed as a practitioner in the Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS) program and as a local facilitator for Landmark. She has been trained in Landmark’s new faculty training, which included Lindamood-Bell, and in Landmark’s writing program, From Talking to Writing. She has also taught courses for Landmark faculty that included LETRS and Lindamood Bell as well as other aspects of literacy and the teaching of reading (decoding, phonological awareness, morphology, fluency, comprehension, and vocabulary). Ms. Sebens has taught these subjects as adjunct faculty at several colleges and in Landmark’s outreach program. She has worked at Landmark since 2006 in a variety of roles, including classroom teacher and literacy tutor; academic advisor; and reading/testing coordinator. She is qualified to administer standardized academic tests such as the KTEA and the GORT. (P-30; Sebens, I: 171-76)

[47] Ms. Sebens acknowledged that Desmond’s spelling improved between June and December 2024, as reflected in the Sentence Completion worksheets he filled out in connection with his application to Landmark. (P-31, P-32; Sebens, I: 201)

[48] This class is comprised of students with a wide range of learning profiles. Many of them are also in Ms. Frost’s reading classes with Desmond. Students in the substantially separate ELA class receive additional scaffolding, sentence starters, and step-by-step instruction. Although Ms. Frost testified that she “sometimes” incorporates her OG strategies into this class, none of the students in it has been diagnosed with a language-based learning disability. (Frost, III: 878-79)

[49] In rendering my decision, I rely on the facts recited in the Findings of Fact section, above, and incorporate them by reference to avoid restating them except where necessary.

[50] See Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 62 (2008).

[51] As Parents have not alleged procedural violations, I limit my analysis to the substantive components of a FAPE.

[52] 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A).

[53] See Endrew F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist., 580 U.S. 386, 401, 403 (2017); D.B. v. Esposito, 675 F.3d 26, 34 (1st Cir. 2012).

[54] See 20 U.S.C. § 1401 (9), (26), (29); 603 CMR 28.05(4)(b); Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 201 (1982); Lessard v. Wilton Lyndeborough Coop. Sch. Dist., 518 F. 3d 18, 23 (1st Cir. 2008); In Re: Student v. Arlington Public Schools, BSEA #2503543 (Kantor Nir, 2024). Similarly, Massachusetts FAPE standards require that an IEP be “reasonably calculated to confer a meaningful educational benefit in light of the child’s circumstances” and designed to permit the student to make “effective progress.” See CMR 28.05(4)(b) (IEP must be “designed to enable the student to progress effectively in the content areas of the general curriculum”); C.D. v. Natick Pub. Sch. Dist., 924 F.3d 621, 624-25 (1st Cir. 2019) (cert denied); In Re Carly v. Franklin Public Schools and Acton-Boxborough Regional School District, BSEA #2412891 (Reichbach, 2025).

[55] Esposito, 675 F.3d at 34 (internal citations omitted).

[56] See 34 CFR 300.324(a)(i-v); Esposito, 675 F.3d at 34; N. Reading Sch. Comm. v. Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, 480 F. Supp. 2d 479, 489 (D. Mass. 2007).

[57] Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 402.

[58] Id. at 403.

[59] 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).

[60] 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A); C.D., 924 F. 3d at 631 (internal citations omitted).

[61] C.G. ex rel. A.S. v. Five Town Comty. Sch. Dist., 513 F.3d 279, 285 (1st Cir. 2008).

[62] Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 401.

[63] C.D., 924 F.3d at 626 (quoting Roland M. v. Concord Sch. Comm., 910 F.2d 983, 993 (1st Cir. 1990)); see In Re: Swansea Public Schools, BSEA #2207178 (Berman, 2022).

[64] Roland M., 910 F.2d at 992 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

[65] Given the absence of baseline data regarding decoding and encoding in the 2024-2025 IEP, however, it is difficult to determine whether Desmond was making progress in his areas of greatest need. Ms. Schwing recognized that this was a problem. See Esposito, 675 F.3d at 34 (IEP must include, “at a bare minimum, the child’s present level of educational attainment [and] objective criteria with which to measure progress toward those goals”).

[66] See Roland M., 910 F.2d at 992 (evaluating an IEP requires viewing it as a “a snapshot, not a retrospective. In striving for appropriateness, an IEP must take into account what was . . . objectively reasonable . . . at the time the IEP was promulgated.” (internal quotations and citations omitted)); see also Falmouth Sch. Dep’t v. Doe ex rel. Doe, 42 F.4^th 23, 42 (1st Cir. 2022) (affirming District Court’s decision upholding Hearing Officer’s finding that IEP denied second grader a FAPE, where the student’s reading and writing skills were at kindergarten level and information available at the time the IEP was developed indicated that he had a significant orthographic deficit, the District “nonetheless proposed only incremental increases in the amount of specialized instruction [Student] should receive and did not further evaluate [his] orthographic issues, or reconsider the type of specialized reading instruction [he] might need” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

[67] See Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 403 (IEP must be designed to meet a student’s unique needs).

[68] C.D., 924 F.3d at 626; Roland M., 910 F.2d at 993; In Re: Swansea Public Schools.

[69] See In Re: Swansea Public Schools (where the Hearing Officer determined that Student required a language-based program but the District was offering a substantially separate program that was not language-based, she found that the District’s proposed program was inappropriate and could not be made appropriate because “making the program capable of providing the Student with FAPE would require a change in the fundamental nature of the program,” and an order “directing Swansea to make such a change is neither an appropriate exercise of the BSEA’s authority nor feasible to implement”). Cf. In Re: Whitman-Hanson Regional School District, BSEA #2007530 (Berman, 2020) (determining that the IEP and placement proposed by the District could be made appropriate with the addition of a Teacher of the Deaf in Student’s classroom whenever Student was present); In Re: Topsfield Public Schools, BSEA #1909367 (Berman, 2019) (finding that although the IEP, as implemented, was inappropriate, it could “be made appropriate with the addition of an appropriate cohort,” and instructing Topsfield that if the District could not identify compatible peers within District, “it could consider inviting other districts to place suitable peers in Student’s program,” though noting that if this could not be done within a reasonable time, the District “must locate a public or private out of district placement for Student with an appropriate peer cohort which can fully implement his IEP.”)

[70] See In Re: Swansea.

[71] In fact, as described above, I have significant concerns about the expertise of Dracut personnel involved with Desmond’s case with respect to dyslexia. This, in conjunction with Ms. Sebens’ opinion regarding the amount of time it takes to develop a language-based program, gives me pause regarding the District’s ability to create, as opposed to locate, an in-district program that meets Desmond’s needs prior to the commencement of the 2025-2026 school year.