In Re: Evan[1] & Belmont Public Schools BSEA# 25-11078

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS

BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS

In Re: Evan[1] & Belmont Public Schools                                        

BSEA# 25-11078

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 June 3, 4, and 5, 2025, before Hearing Officer Amy Reichbach. With the consent of both parties and agreement of all participants, the hearing was held in person on the first two days and online in a virtual format, via Zoom, on the third day. Those present for all or part of the proceedings were:

Mother

Father

Student’s Grandmother

Phoebe Adams                         Learning Specialist/Educational Consultant, Private Practice

Katrina Carson                          Special Education Teacher, Winn Brook Elementary School (Winn Brook), Belmont Public Schools (Belmont)

Glens Colman                            Assistant Division Head, Lower School, The Carroll                                                 School (Carroll)

Jessica Eisner                           Elementary Team Chair, Belmont

Abigail Gibson                           Private Tutor

Nicole Kassissieh                     Private Evaluator                                         

Jennifer McKenzie                    General Education Teacher, Belmont  

Nicole Torniero                        General Education Teacher, Winn Brook                

Colby Brunt, Esq.                     Attorney for Belmont

Peter Hahn, Esq.                      Attorney for Parents        

Chris Connolly, Esq.                 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-26; documents submitted by Belmont and marked as Exhibits S-1 to S-23(C); two- and one-half days of oral testimony and argument; and a three-volume transcript produced by the court reporter. At the parties’ request, a postponement was granted through July 14, 2025 for submission of written closing arguments. Pursuant to Parents’ July 10, 2025 assented-to request, a further postponement to July 17, 2025 was allowed for good cause. Closing arguments were received and the record closed on that date.

1. INTRODUCTION

On April 8, 2025, Parents filed a Hearing Request with the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) against Belmont, asserting that the District failed to offer Evan, an eight-year-old student with a Specific Learning Disability (SLD), a free appropriate public education (FAPE). Specifically, Parents contend that the Individualized Education Program (IEP) proposed by Belmont for the period from February 12, 2024 to February 11, 2025, as amended on June 3, 2024, and the IEP proposed for the period from January 21, 2025 to January 20, 2026, denied and deny, respectively, Evan a FAPE. They sought reimbursement for tuition and transportation for their unilateral placement of Evan at Carroll for the 2024-2025 school year, including tuition and transportation; reimbursement for all costs related to private tutoring during the relevant time period; and an Order that Belmont provide compensatory services for all denials of a FAPE over the past two years. The Hearing was scheduled for May 13, 2025.

On April 18, 2025, Belmont filed its Response to Parents’ Hearing Request, asserting that the IEPs and placements proposed by the District during the relevant time period were and are reasonably calculated to provide Evan a FAPE in the least restrictive environment (LRE).

On May 1, 2025, the parties jointly requested that the Hearing be postponed for three weeks to permit them to work toward resolution of the issues underlying the Hearing Request and complete discovery. This request was granted for good cause, and the Hearing was scheduled for June 4, 5, and 6, 2025.[2]

The issues set forth for Hearing are as follows:

1. Whether the IEP proposed by Belmont for the period from February 12, 2024 to February 11, 2025, as  amended June 3, 2024 (Amended 2024-2025 IEP) was reasonably calculated to provide Evan with a FAPE; and/or

2. Whether the 2025-2026 IEP proposed for Evan for the period from January 21, 2025 to January 20, 2026, was and is reasonably calculated to provide him with a FAPE;

3. If not, whether Parents are entitled to reimbursement for their unilateral placement of Evan at the Carroll School for the 2024-2025 school year and/or compensatory services.

2. FINDINGS OF FACT[3]

1. Evan, who is eight years old, lives with his Parents and his older sister in Belmont, Massachusetts. (P-1; S-19; Mother, II: 308)

2. From an early age, Evan had significantly delayed speech and language and received Early Intervention. When he was three years old, his preschool teacher reportedly noticed dyslexic tendencies. (P-1; S-19; Mother, II: 309-13)

3. Evan attended Winn Brook in Belmont for kindergarten and first grade, during the 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 school years, respectively. (P-1; S-19; Mother, II: 313)

4. During kindergarten Evan had a great experience with a seasoned teacher, but he struggled with letters and reading. His teacher told Parents that Evan had the markers for dyslexia, and Parents requested that he be evaluated for special education. (P-2; S-16B; Mother, II: 313-15, 357)

5. Belmont conducted initial assessments of Evan in January 2023. On the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence – Fourth Edition (WPPSI-IV), Evan’s full-scale intellectual quotient (FSIQ) fell in the High Average range, and his verbal comprehension skills and performance on visual spatial tasks were relatively strong compared with his Average-range performance on working memory and processing speed tasks. He presented with a “relatively solid cognitive profile with evenly developed abilities.” On the Weschler Individual Achievement Test – Fourth Edition (WIAT-4), Evan scored in the Average range on all subtests of Math and Writing and measures of Phonemic Proficiency and Word Reading, but in the Below Average range in Reading Comprehension. Evan received an Above Average score in Expressive Vocabulary and Average-range scores on all other Oral Language subtests. His WIAT-4 Composite Scores were all in the Average range, including the Dyslexia Index, though Reading was on the lower end of this range. On the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing – Second Edition (CTOPP-2), Evan’s Composite Scores were in the Average range for Phonological Awareness, Phonological Memory, and Rapid Non-Symbolic Naming, but in the Poor range for Rapid Symbolic Naming, where he was very slow and deliberate in his pace. The evaluator, Katrina Carson,[4] noted that Evan’s difficulty with Rapid Letter Naming was similar to his performance on some school-based indicators, such as the DIBELS assessment; he was displaying difficulty recalling letters and numbers presented visually, which was slowing him down. At Hearing, Ms. Carson acknowledged that except for alphabet writing fluency and oral reading fluency, the instruments she administered were all untimed. In her report, Ms. Carson recommended extended time for reading tasks as needed; frequent check-ins to ensure understanding; gentle encouragement; additional practice of number and letter recall; multisensory instruction for phonics, grade-level sight words, and other literacy tasks; and asking literal questions about what Evan has read to help with reading comprehension skills.

6.  In speech and language testing administered by Belmont’s speech and language pathologist, Evan exhibited age-expected skills, displaying above-average to superior language abilities on several tasks.[5] His scores on his occupational therapy evaluation were in the Average range, though he demonstrated some difficulty on certain visual sequential memory tasks, which the evaluator noted could affect his reading and spelling skills. She recommended a multisensory approach for reading/spelling tasks.[6] (P-1, P-4, P-5; S-4, S-5, S-6, S-7, S-8, S-19; Mother, II: 315; Carson, II: 388-98, 432-40)

7. The IEP Team convened on February 27, 2023 to review Evan’s evaluations.[7] His teacher shared information about his classroom performance, indicating he needed a lot of support to learn letters and kindergarten skills for reading. He was found eligible for special education under the SLD category, and the Team agreed that Evan needed a multisensory approach for reading and spelling. (P-5; S-4; Mother, II: 315-17; Eisner, III: 547)

8. The Team proposed an initial full-inclusion IEP dated February 27, 2023 to February 26, 2024 (2023-2024 IEP) with one goal in Reading and eight related benchmarks. It proposed Grid-C special instruction in reading with a special education teacher/reading specialist (4 x 30 minutes/5-day cycle) and Grid-A Consultation from that provider to staff (1 x 15 minutes/10 days). The 2023-2024 IEP contained a number of accommodations, including small group instruction whenever possible, multisensory teaching techniques for reading and spelling, visual supports, pairing of auditory and visual information, presentation of directions in small chunks, repetition of new skills and information in small chunks throughout the school day, extra time for reading tasks and to think before responding, frequent check-ins during independent work time to ensure comprehension, opportunities and encouragement to ask for help and respond even when unsure, and asking of literal comprehension questions when reading. Methodology/Delivery of Instruction in PLEP-A listed “Small group/individualized special education support/instruction outside of the general education environment” and “Structured, multi-sensory phonemic awareness instruction, phonics instruction, sight word recall, fluency, and comprehension instruction.” (P-1, P-5; S-4, S-19; Carson, II: 400-01; McKenzie, III: 517-19; Eisner, III: 548)

9. Parents accepted the 2023-2024 IEP and placement in full on March 21, 2023. (P-5; S-4; Mother, II: 358; Carson, III: 401; Eisner, III: 548)

10. Ms. Carson, who conducted Evan’s academic testing in January 2023, supra, was Evan’s reading service provider for the remainder of kindergarten and first grade  and is now his liaison for Winn Brook. During the spring of 2023, from March through the end of the school year, Ms. Carson met with Evan one-to-one, using the 95 Percent Intervention curriculum, which she testified at Hearing is “used to provide multisensory, Science of Reading-aligned, evidence-based instruction for students through Tier 3 and specialized instruction.” Ms. Carson received her Orton-Gillingham (OG) comprehensive plus certification on December 1, 2023, which required 30 hours of training. According to Ms. Carson, this training offered by the Institute of Multi-Sensory Education provided her with the scope, sequence, and ability to implement OG for students in kindergarten through second grade. She completed an additional three-hour training for fluency, vocabulary, and reading comprehension. At Hearing, Ms. Carson explained that 95 Percent utilizes methodologies and principles similar to OG to teach phonemic awareness, encoding, phonics, reading fluency, and decoding, though the scope and sequence of the two approaches differs. (Carson, II: 387-88, 401-02, 448-51)

11. Mother believed that Evan would be receiving Orton-Gillingham instruction for his reading service and that Ms. Carson was trained in OG, as she “had just assumed that anyone who would be giving special ed[ucation] services to a student who is clearly dyslexic would have Orton-Gillingham training.”  (Mother, II: 317-18, 366)

12. Evan’s first progress report on the 2023-2024 IEP, issued in June 2023, demonstrates that he was making progress. At this time, he was completing kindergarten and had met DIBELS kindergarten benchmarks for letter naming fluency, nonsense word fluency correct letter sounds, nonsense fluency whole words read, and word reading fluency. He was above the kindergarten benchmark for DIBELS phoneme segmentation fluency. Evan had met grade level benchmarks for lowercase and uppercase alphabet letter identification. Though he presented with some b/d p/q confusion, he was making consistent progress in recognizing these letters and knew all 26 corresponding letter sounds. Evan was reading at a Fountas and Pinnell Level C, middle to end of Kindergarten, and was making progress on the benchmarks associated with his Reading goal, such as identifying beginning and ending sounds of words and blending sounds. Evan’s kindergarten report card also reflects progress across academic and social areas. (P-5; S-4, S-10, S-14B; Carson, II: 402-07)

13. From the time Ms. Carson completed her OG training in December 2023, in the middle of Evan’s first grade year, the core of her instruction with Evan  was OG. She differentiated and adapted the curriculum utilizing 95 Percent, as well as Fountas and Pinnell for reading comprehension using connected texts. (Carson, II: 449-53, 487-88)

14. Jennifer McKenzie, a general education teacher trained in Orton-Gillingham, taught Evan’s first-grade general education class during the 2023-2024 school year.[8] Parents were impressed with Ms. McKenzie from the first day they met her. Evan was the only student on an IEP in the class at the beginning of the school year, when the class was comprised of 20 students. A new student joined mid-year.[9] (Mother, II: 318-19, 372-73; McKenzie, II: 492, III: 520)

15. Ms. McKenzie described Evan as a kind, sweet, curious student who works hard, follows classroom routines, and is well-liked by his peers. When Evan came to school in first grade he seemed happy to be there. He enjoyed learning, particularly math. (McKenzie, II: 491-92, 500-02)

16. Ms. McKenzie’s first-grade class participated in daily literacy (including phonics, dictation, and Reader’s Workshop) and math blocks. Writers’ Workshop occurred in four different blocks across the week. Math, literacy and writing blocks were broken into two parts: the teaching of a new concept through a mini-lesson; and rotation through three rounds (for example, a skills review, a game with a partner, and time with a teacher in math). Science/social studies was taught in two different blocks, as was social/emotional learning. Students participated in a What I Need Now (WINN) literacy block three days a week and a WINN math block twice a week, where students were grouped to work on skills in each area. Evan generally attended his Grid-C reading services during WINN literacy block or Reader’s Workshop. (S-15; McKenzie, II: 492-94, III: 535-39, 542-43)

17. Although she acknowledged at Hearing that she was not delivering special education services, Ms. McKenzie infused her literacy instruction with OG concepts. Her literacy instruction included blocks focused on phonics (for example, a three-part-drill that incorporated visual, auditory, and blending exercises) and literacy rounds where students would be grouped according to which skills they needed to practice. Ms. McKenzie used programs such as Lexia, a digital platform for decodable texts; EPIC, for students to read and/or listen to books; Raz-Kids, a computer-based reading program that guides students; Fundations (with OG mixed in) for phonics; Heggerty for phonemic awareness; and Units of Study for reading and writing. Students’ reading levels were assessed using the Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System, though Ms. McKenzie did not use Fountas and Pinnell Leveled Literacy Instruction. Instead, during Reader’s Workshop students worked with decodable texts on phonics patterns. (McKenzie, II: 495-99; III: 518-21, 526-30, 536-37, 542)

18. On February 12, 2024, Belmont convened Evan’s annual review. The Team reviewed his progress. As of February 2024, Evan had mastered five out of eight Reading objectives, was close to mastery of a sixth, and was making progress on the remaining objectives. He had made consistent gains since the beginning of the school year on DIBELS progress monitoring and was reading at a Fountas and Pinnell Level E, beginning of first grade. Although his oral reading fluency was relatively weak, Evan was continuing to make progress in his ability to access and understand text. The Team agreed that Evan continued to require specialized reading instruction and updated his goals, objectives, and accommodations based on his performance. The Team considered and rejected both Extended School Year (ESY) services and a separate writing goal, noting that encoding/spelling was included within Evan’s Reading goal. Going forward, Evan would be grouped with two additional students, rather than continue to receive his pull-out services one-on-one. At this time, Parents learned that Ms. Carson had not been trained in OG at the time she began working with Evan. (P-6, P-7, P-11, P-21; S-3, S-11; Mother, II: 319-20, 366-68; Carson, II: 407-10, 460)

19. At Hearing, Ms. Carson testified that whether instruction is delivered one-on-one or in a small group, it aligns with what each student needs in terms of their phonics skills, so groupings of students are aligned “as closely as possible in terms of their needs.” She is able to move at each student’s pace “utilizing multisensory instruction and targeting to different areas that address the students’” IEPs. Evan’s reading services had been delivered one-to-one earlier in the school year “only because [Ms. Carson did not] have any other students on IEPs at the time, not because his level of literacy need was [so] significant that he required a one-to-one.” (Carson, II: 474-75)

20. Following the Team meeting, Belmont proposed an IEP dated February 12, 2024 to February 11, 2025 (provisional 2024-2025 IEP), which continued the services and accommodations from the 2023-2024 IEP within a full inclusion placement at Winn Brook. (P-6)

21. Parents responded by email on February 12, 2024, expressing questions and concerns. They requested edits to Parent Concerns to include, among other things, the use of OG “whenever possible and especially when he’s working with the Special Education teacher,” and to Methodology/Delivery of Instruction, to include “[d]ata-driven, evidence-based methodologies such as Orton-Gillingham/Wilson which are proven best practices.” Parents also requested summer services and a monthly consult between them and school personnel; that Evan be grouped with students of commensurate ability/need and receive services out of the classroom to minimize disruption and distraction; and that they be provided the qualifications and certifications of the special education teacher who would work with Evan. (P-6; Mother, II: 321-22, 358)

22. The Team reconvened on March 12, 2024 to discuss Parents’ concerns.[10] The Team updated the Parent Concerns section of the IEP and added ESY reading services for four weeks (1 x 75 minutes/week) with special education/general education staff, as data collected before and after the February break indicated regression. The Team declined Parents’ request to specify that Evan’s reading support would use the OG approach. A new IEP dated February 12, 2024 to February 11, 2025 (revised 2024-2025 IEP) was proposed on or about March 18, 2024. (P-7; S-3; Mother, II: 321-23, 359; Carson, II: 410-11; McKenzie, III: 520-21; Eisner, III: 549-50)

23. Parents accepted the revised 2024-2025 IEP and placement in full on or about April 6, 2024. They determined that they would obtain a private neuropsychological evaluation and private tutoring to supplement what Belmont was offering. (P-7; S-3; Mother, II: 323-24, 359-60; Eisner, III: 550)

24. Shortly thereafter, on April 9, 2024, Ms. Carson reached out to Parents regarding the results of Evan’s recent DIBELS progress monitoring, which demonstrated notable progress in oral reading fluency. (S-18)

25. On April 25, 2024, Dr. Nicole Kassissieh[11] conducted a Neuropsychological Evaluation of Evan.[12] Prior to conducting Evan’s assessment, Dr. Kassisieh conducted an intake interview with Parents to collect background information, observations, and history. Under “Reason for Referral” in her report, Dr. Kassissieh noted that Evan “has received services since mid-way through Kindergarten and, though he is making progress, his parents want to ensure that he is properly diagnosed and getting the right kind of help.” (P-1; S-19, S-20; Kassissieh, I: 28-29, 65; Mother, II: 359-61). It was hard for Evan to come back into the room for testing following the lunch break; his mother had to assist with the transition. In terms of cognitive ability, Dr. Kassissieh noted average verbal, visual spatial, fluid reasoning, working memory and processing speed. (P-1; S-19; Kassissieh, I: 30-31; Mother, II: 324-27)

In her report, Dr Kassissieh remarked on the significant difference between Evan’s solidly average verbal abilities and some of his reading and writing skills, noting that when given enough time to process content, he earned average scores but under time constraints or when automaticity was required, his scores on tests of reading and writing were far lower than expected. Specifically, on the Weschler Intelligence Scale for Children – Fifth Edition (WISC-V), Evan mainly scored in the Average range, with High Average results in the Visual Spatial Composite, indicating that “he presents with having the potential to learn with . . . mainstream education.” Dr. Kassissieh also administered the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children – Second Edition (KABC-II) and the recognition trial of the Rey-Osterrrieth Complex Figure Test (ROCF) to examine word retrieval and executive functioning skills, respectively. On the ROCF, Evan was able to grasp visual information, but he had significant challenges with planning to recreate an image. (P-1; S-19; Kassissieh, I: 32-36)

On academic assessments, Evan earned Average scores for all Math-related tests. His scores ranged from Average to High Average on the CTOPP-2. On the WIAT-IV, Evan scored in the Low Average Range in Sentence Writing Fluency; in the High Average range on Pseudoword Decoding; and in the Average range on all other subtests. On the Test of Word Reading Efficiency – Second Edition (TOWRE-2), Evan scored in the Low Average range on timed subtests measuring Sight Word Efficiency and Phonemic Decoding deficiency. When asked to read full passages on the Grey Oral Reading Test – Fifth edition (GORT-5), Evan’s fluency was in the 25th percentile, average but “far lower than would be expected,” according to Dr. Kassissieh, given his Verbal Comprehension Index score. Overall, Evan’s academic testing revealed some Average-range results on untimed measures, though his sight word reading was still lower than his ability to sound out words. On timed measures, which focus on fluency and automaticity, Evan had a high verbal comprehension index, and his oral discourse comprehension and reading comprehension were both in the Average range, but Dr. Kassissieh noted that his ability to recall what he read aloud, timed, from memory, was “lower than anticipated.” On untimed writing tasks, Evan scored within the Average range, but his score was very low on the Sentence Writing Fluency subtest. Dr. Kassissieh concluded that Evan’s “key challenge” is automaticity. (P-1; S-19; Kassissieh, I: 36-49, 65-68)

Measures of emotional functioning, which included parent and teacher questionnaires, projective measures, and clinical interviews, portrayed Evan as “being overwhelmed at times and not being able to manage the stress effectively.” (P-1; S-19; Kassissieh, I: 50- 52) On the Behavior Assessment System of Children – Third Edition (BASC-3), neither Mother nor Ms. Carson reported any areas in the clinically significant or at-risk range. Father, however, reported some concerns at these levels, though he later reached out to Dr. Kassissieh to explain that he had misreported on the questionnaire.[13] (Kassissieh, I: 70-73; Mother, II: 360-62)

Dr. Kassissieh diagnosed Evan with Orthographic Processing Dyslexia, a SLD with impairment in Reading (in word reading accuracy, rate or fluency, automaticity, reading comprehension), and a SLD in Written Expression (grammar and punctuation accuracy, clarity or organization of written expression). She also diagnosed him with Executive Functioning Deficits. (P-1; S-19; Kassissieh, I: 45-50)

26. Dr. Kassissieh concluded that as Evan ages and reading and writing demands increase, he will not be able to keep up with his peers. She recommended accommodations, to include extended time, use of assistive technology for reading and writing; repetition and checking of understanding of essential information and instructions; preview of novel vocabulary; incorporation of self-checking and use of teacher feedback, including proof-reading and editing; and, in later grades, allowing for use of calculators and the option to waive a Foreign Language requirement. She also recommended special education services focused on automaticity and sight word reading. Specifically, Dr. Kassissieh recommended that in addition to his current sound-symbol work (4 x 30 minutes per week), Evan receive the following: more repeated exposure to the sights and sounds of words, in the form of reading aloud lower level books with immediate correction by a parent or tutor; morphology-based fluency work in the form of Megawords or Reading and Automaticity, Vocabulary, Engagement and Orthography (RAVE-O); a writing fluency/accuracy goal to include support writing high frequency words, practice coordinating the phonological, orthographic, and morphological processes often seen in novel words, and practice of common, important words across academic domains; tactile, multisensory instruction of letter/words; and strategies from speech-to-print reading approaches. Dr. Kassissieh further recommended that Evan be taught active reading strategies using an evidence-based reading comprehension program; that his Math progress be monitored in light of his dyslexia; that an occupational therapy evaluation be conducted to determine whether Evan’s visual planning and/or writing skills require direct services; and that the family engage with a therapist, at least on a consultative basis, who communicates with the school psychologist. (P-1; S-19; Kassissieh, I: 53-62, 73-74)

27. A comparison of Evan’s reading comprehension scores on the WIAT-IV between  January 2023 (Belmont testing) and April 2024 (Kassissieh re-testing) evidences an increase from a standard score of 80 to an average score of 97. Similarly, Evan’s CTOPP scores had increased in all areas (phonemic awareness, phonemic memory, and rapid naming). Dr. Kassissieh expressed concern, however, that Evan was still struggling with “very low” scores in other areas that “applied to actually successful reading.” Specifically, Dr. Kassissieh discussed Evan’s GORT-V scores in the Low Average to Average range, his RAN/RAS scores ranging from Very Low to Average, and his Low Average scores across the board on the TOWRE. She noted that her clinical observation of Evan’s reading and writing suggested that he experienced difficulty when multiple skills had to be integrated and the complexity of the task increased. (P-1; S-6, S-19; Kassissieh, I: 68-70, 73-74; Carson, II: 389, 399-400)

28. In May 2024, Evan began receiving private OG tutoring from Abigail Gibson.[14] Ms. Gibson testified about OG methodology and its benefits for students with language-based learning differences, calling it “the gold standard of reading intervention.” She described OG as a phonics-based, multisensory, direct and explicit, structured and sequential approach, and explained that phonics-based learning is teaching decoding skills and strategies. Ms. Gibbons testified that best practice for OG instruction is one-to-one delivery twice a week for 40 to 60 minutes at a time and described the multiple components of a typical lesson. She further explained that she collects data during an OG lesson and conducts informal assessments once or twice a week by having the student read a fluency passage from Read Naturally. Every three months, she conducts a broader curriculum-based assessment to measure progress. Asked whether OG fits within the Science of Reading, Ms. Gibson acknowledged that she did not “know that much about the Science of Reading.” Asked about structured literacy as an approach, she said she “thinks it’s Lucy Calkins.” (Gibson, II: 274, 279-92)  

29. Ms. Gibson tutored Evan twice a week one-to-one for 55 minutes each session from May through August 2024, for a total of approximately 14 or 15 sessions, doing what she characterized as “pure OG,” following the curriculum and “basing each lesson off of what he was showing that he knew.”[15]  After his initial resistance prior to their first meeting, Evan looked forward to working with Ms. Gibson. According to Ms. Gibson, he was very focused and responsive to this approach. When Ms. Gibson began working with Evan, he was reading 26 words per minute at an early first-grade passage, at about the 14th percentile. In August, Evan was able to read 40 words per minute on an early second-grade passage, which Ms. Gibson testified is at the 27th percentile based on Read Naturally. Ms. Gibson testified that the type of instruction she provided Evan, which is the same as the tutorial instruction she provided when she worked at Carroll, is appropriate for him, and she expressed concern that the delivery of OG in small groups would not permit sufficient tailoring to individual student needs. (Gibson, II: 274, 292-93, 300-05; Mother, II: 330-31, 374) Ms. Gibson told Mother at some point over the summer that she believed Carroll would be a good fit for Evan and that if he did not get in, Evan should work with her four days a week for 55 minutes a day. (Mother, II: 336-37)

30. In May 2024, Parents applied to Carroll on Evan’s behalf. (S-21; Mother, II: 338)

31. On May 28, 2024, Mother emailed Dr. Kassissieh’s evaluation to Team Chair Jessica Eisner.[16] Mother mentioned in her email that she was concerned about Evan’s emotional well-being “due to the stressors of dyslexia and feeling inadequate to his peers.” She mentioned that he had shared with her that he “doesn’t like life.” Mother requested a consultation with a counselor. The next day, Ms. Eisner responded that a meeting would be scheduled to discuss the evaluation and that she would include a counselor in the meeting. Parents were distressed by this response, as they believed a school psychologist should have met with Evan right away. (S-21; Mother, II: 329-30, 332-33, 363-64)

32.  On June 3, 2024, the Team reconvened to discuss Dr. Kassissieh’s evaluation. Dr. Kassissieh attended the meeting, which Parents believed would result in a “huge, drastic change” to the IEP. Belmont again considered and rejected a separate writing goal, as according to both Ms. Carson and Ms. McKenzie, Evan was demonstrating developmentally appropriate writing skills in the classroom. The Team noted that the spelling and editing weaknesses identified by Dr. Kassissieh were being addressed within the encoding objectives of his Reading goal. An executive functioning goal was considered and rejected, as Evan was displaying developmentally appropriate skills in this area. An occupational therapy evaluation was also considered and rejected, as the occupational therapist reviewed Evan’s fine motor functioning from his previous evaluation and determined an additional evaluation was not necessary. Parents shared their concerns about Evan’s mental health and requested therapeutic support. The Team determined that Evan was not demonstrating any social-emotional challenges impacting his learning that required specialized instruction or time outside of the general education setting. Ms. McKenzie proposed that counseling staff check in with Evan at the beginning of the school year so he would be familiar with someone, and the Team agreed to this. The N1 associated with the meeting stated, “The Team will consult with the mental health staff and the mental health staff will check in with [Evan], as needed, to ensure feelings of increased self-confidence and belonging.” (P-8; S-2; Mother, II: 329, 332-35; Carson, II: 413-15)

33. Following the meeting, Belmont proposed an IEP Amendment to the revised 2024-2025 IEP, which added accommodations based on Dr. Kassissieh’s report; increased Grid-C reading instruction with a special education teacher/reading specialist to 5 x 30 minutes per 5-day cycle; and updated the Additional Information section to include access to mental health staff as needed. The Amended 2024-2025 IEP increased ESY with special education/general education staff from 1 x 75 minutes per 5-day cycle to 4 x 75 minutes per 5-day cycle. (P-7, P-8; S-2; Kassissieh, I: 63; Mother, II: 365, 374-75)

34. On June 4, 2024, the day after the Team meeting, Dr. Kassissieh emailed Mother, stating, “I think that the team is invested and will be setting up [Evan] for a good year next year if you chose (sic) to stay at this school.” She also wrote that the increase in reading instruction from four 30-minute sessions per week to five “is positive, though there are so many services that are being condensed into that time, I would recommend keeping up with the service delivery and having check-ins.” Upon learning from Parents in a subsequent email that Evan had been working one-to-one with Ms. Carson up until a couple of months before the meeting and that the proposed services for the 2024-2025 school year would be small group, Dr. Kassissieh responded, “That is definitely important. I see your point about the small increase . . . You can always revisit this next year.” (S-22; Kassissieh, I: 74-76)

35. At Hearing, Dr. Kassissieh testified that the District’s proposal to increase Evan’s 30-minute reading services from four to five times per week was insufficient, as 30 minutes per week was not enough time to incorporate all of the interventions she had recommended – specifically, repeated exposure to the sight and sound of words, with in-the-moment correction of mistakes; use of a program such as Megawords or RAVE-O; specially designed instruction in writing; and reading comprehension. (Kassissieh, I: 63-64, 79-82) She also explained that a one-to-one setting for 30 minutes permits “active instruction that is geared to and responsive to where the student is at,” whereas instruction of up to three students for that same period would be less intensive due to potential interactions, distractions, and students working at different paces. (Kassissieh, I: 76-79)

36. Ms. Carson testified that Evan’s small reading group worked through OG lessons together during the school year. Specifically, in June 2024, they were beginning class with a phonemic awareness lesson, focusing on sound substitution. Then they would move into direct phonics instruction, working on the Magic E phonics pattern; this was followed by sentence dictation, then decodable texts. Ms. Carson would have students read decodable texts out loud, tracking their oral fluency data, and once they reached 95 percent accuracy, she would ask comprehension questions. (Carson, II: 481-87)

37. According to the progress report issued at the end of his first grade year on June 14, 2024, Evan was making consistent progress on three of the seven benchmarks associated with his Reading goal and making progress on two others; two were listed as “developing skill,” as they were either just being introduced or scheduled to be introduced the next school year. He was reading at a Fountas and Pinnell Level G (middle of first grade), with 97% accuracy. His overall DIBELS Composite score met the grade level benchmark for first grade, though Parents had received a letter in February 2024 indicating that this score had placed him in the “some risk” category. (P-12, P-22; S-12, S-13; Mother, II: 367, 370-72; Carson, II: 411-12)

37. Beginning, middle, and end of year assessments measured Evan’s growth through first grade. He began the school year reading at a middle-of-kindergarten level on Fountas and Pinnell, with a DIBELS composite in the Average range. On a measure of high frequency sight words, Evan knew 40 of 62 kindergarten level and three of 105 first-grade level words. By the middle of the year, Evan was reading at the beginning of first grade level on Fountas and Pinnell. On the i-Ready math assessment, Evan did not make much progress between the beginning and middle of the year. He was receiving general education small group support with a math specialist for additional targeted instruction in specific concepts. By the end of the year, Evan had achieved benchmark on the DIBELS data and knew 60 kindergarten and 92 first-grade sight words. He was reading at Fountas and Pinnell Level G, middle of first grade. By the end of the school year, Evan’s Dictation score, which measures his ability to recognize sounds and words, was 36 out of 37.[17] Although some of Evan’s scores remained below the first grade benchmark, he was making progress. Ms. Carson testified that Evan’s DIBELS assessments across the school year showed growth from below benchmark to above in letter naming fluency, which had been identified previously as an area of weakness;  phoneme segmentation fluctuated a bit and was a little below benchmark at the end of the year; and nonsense word reading fluency was above benchmark by the end of the year, as was his ability to decode nonsense words. Evan’s word reading fluency and oral reading fluency were a little below benchmark by the end of the year, but he had made progress. (P-23; Carson, II: 415-24. 461-69; McKenzie, II: 502-04, III: 532)

39. According to Ms. Carson, Evan made consistent progress across the board with her reading instruction in phonological awareness, phonics, spelling, and reading comprehension regardless of the program she used, “because all of it was science-aligned, multisensory, phonics-based instruction.” (Carson, II: 427-28)

40. Ms. McKenzie testified that Evan made progress across the curriculum in first grade and also grew socially. His first-grade report card reflects this progress. (S-14A; McKenzie, II: 506-07)

41. Parents were not confident about Belmont’s proposed summer program or the 2024-2025 school year. They declined ESY, and Evan continued private tutoring over the summer of 2024. Parents were also concerned that unlike Ms. McKenzie, Evan’s second-grade teacher would not have OG training. (Mother, II: 368-69, 374-75)

42. Evan was invited to visit Carroll on June 4, 2024 in response to Parents’ May application. (S-22) He spent half a day being observed in a Carroll classroom in July. (Mother, II: 339) Parents learned in August that Evan had been accepted at Carroll for the 2024-2025 school year. (Mother, I: 339)

43.  Sometime between July 2 and July 8, 2024, Parents partially rejected the proposed IEP Amendment. Specifically, they rejected the reading service provider; the omission of goals in reading fluency, reading comprehension, reading rate, and written expression; and the failure to identify OG as the methodology for direct instruction. Parents requested a meeting to discuss the rejected portions of the IEP. They stated that because of the timing, they would agree to meet with the Team Chair or Director of Special Education rather than the Team, as “placement may need to be considered.” (P-8, P-9; S-2; Mother, II: 364-65)

44. On August 2, 2024, Parents provided Belmont with notice that they would be placing Evan unilaterally at Carroll for second grade during the 2024-2025 school year and seeking reimbursement. (P-9; Mother, II: 335-36, 340)

45. Evan began attending Carroll at the beginning of the 2024-2025 school year. According to Mother, he liked it from the first day, and “Carroll has completely transformed his relationship with learning.” (Mother, II: 340-41)

46. At Hearing, Carroll’s Assistant Division Head of the Lower School, Glens Colman,[18] testified about Carroll and its appropriateness for Evan. Carroll is licensed as a school through DESE, received accreditation last year through the Association of Independent Schools of New England, and is accredited by the Academy of Orton-Gillingham Practitioners as both a school and a training site. Carroll is not, however, a 766-approved school for special education in Massachusetts. Carroll’s instruction is informed by the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks. Carroll employs an OG approach to teaching reading and writing. Every faculty member has some training in OG, and most tutors and language teachers have gained some kind of certification through the Orton-Gillingham Academy (the Academy). New teachers begin with an induction program for a week and a half before all teachers return one week before the school year begins. This training, in addition to ongoing professional learning opportunities for all teachers, covers topics such as data driven instruction, Orton-Gillingham, pedagogy, principles such as The Whole Child, and diversity, equity, and inclusion. (Colman, I: 93-99)

Within the course of the day, children in Carroll’s lower school attend six periods, each 50 minutes long. Four are academic periods, three of which are language-based. Students also have two “multis,” or specials per day, such as physical education, art, Bounders, and science. Each “multi” meets twice per week.  According to Ms. Colman, OG is “the basis” for instruction and methodology in all academic classes, in that each class includes direct and explicit instruction, delivered through a sequential, cumulative, multisensory approach. The school focuses on meta-cognitive development, based on “emotionally sound principles.” All students are enrolled in a language class comprised of seven or eight students and one teacher, where decoding, encoding, and phonemic awareness are “highlighted.”  At the second-grade level, most students are nonreaders so the language class focuses primarily on oral language and listening comprehension, with some emphasis on grammar. All students also take a “very Orton-Gillingham-based” language-focused tutorial, which is taught “directly and explicitly as a phonics-based program” that “follows the language progression.” Each tutorial consists of one teacher and one to four students. All students also participate in a “flex block,” consisting of one teacher and four to six students, where students receive interventions appropriate for their needs, and a mathematics class comprised of one teacher and six to ten students. (P-14; Colman, I: 99-102)

47. One of Ms. Colman’s responsibilities at Carroll is to serve as a coach. In this role, Ms. Colman observes and meets with individual faculty members regularly to discuss curriculum and instruction, although the division head is ultimately the supervisor of all faculty. One of the faulty members Ms. Colman coaches is Ellen Cook, Evan’s primary classroom teacher for second grade.[19] (Colman, I: 91-92, 100, 138-30) Ms. Cook taught all of Evan’s classes except tutorial and the “multis.” (Colman, I: 91-92, 100, 114) As Ms. Cook’s coach during the 2024-2025 school year, Ms. Colman met with her weekly to review student data, brainstorm any classroom issues that arose, discuss the goals they had set together, and provide feedback following classroom observations. Ms. Cook also reported to three different department heads, one for each content area she taught. (Colman, I: 115-17)

48. In Evan’s language class with Ms. Cook, students used several different methodologies, including Project Read for story structure and comprehension; Reciprocal Teaching for comprehension; Expanding Expression for listening comprehension and oral language; Framing Your Thoughts for grammar and the beginning stages of writing; and Approach to Learning for readiness-to-learn skills. (Colman, I: 107-09)

49. Tutorials at Carroll entail six-part lessons, incorporating decoding and phonemic awareness; reading to build fluency with connected text (mostly with decodables for younger children); and spelling and dictation. Although tutorials may include up to four students with a teacher, Evan was in a one-to-one tutorial with Caroline Champa throughout second grade. Ms. Champa was a graduate intern[20] at Carroll during the 2024-2025 school year and was expected to complete her Associate level certificate through the Academy in June 2025.[21] Ms. Colman began her internship program in June 2024 with front-loaded theoretical coursework, including OG, and once the school year started, she focused more on her practical residency. (Colman, I: 102, 105-07, 117-21)

50. Evan’s flex block for second grade entailed interventions through the RAVE-O program two to three times per week. According to Ms. Colman, RAVE-O focuses on morphology and the meaning of words, understanding of words, word families, and similar patterns within words. One day a week during this period, Evan worked on cognitive development. (Colman, I: 100, 103-06) In second grade, Evan’s flex class was also taught by Ms. Cook. (Colman, I: 115)

51. Evan’s second-grade math class followed the scope and sequence of Illustrative Math and also incorporated ST Math. Carroll staff supplement with “bits and pieces of other programs, depending on what the topic is.” (Colman, I: 110-11)

52. Social studies is not taught separately in Carroll’s lower school. Diversity, equity, and inclusion and social studies topics are generally taught through team time, twice a week on the “multi” rotation. (P-14; Colman, I: 112-13)

53. Science is also taught as a “multi,” twice a week for half a year. Mr. McCoobery, who taught Evan science in second grade at Carroll, is a Carroll tutor who is OG certified at the Associate level, but his background is in sound mixing and he has no past educational experience or certifications. Mr. McCoobery has been at Carroll for approximately 10 years; he began as a cognitive specialist, teaching the cognitive portion of the flex period, and subsequently became a trainer for that program before beginning his OG certification. Ms. Colman serves as Mr. McCoobery’s coach. No formal or informal data is collected at Carroll “in the science realm.” Ms. Colman assists Mr. McCoobery in addressing on-the-ground classroom situations, including behavior management, while he works with the science department head to develop curriculum. Ms. Colman testified that for teachers who do not hold a teaching license or are not certified to teach special education, Carroll ensures that they are prepared to provide the instruction students need by having those teachers work with coaches and department heads, develop educator portfolios that feed into self-evaluation, and attend professional development offerings throughout the year. (P-14; S-23B; Colman, I: 142-47)

54. In early August 2024, before the 2024-2025 school year started, Parents contacted Phoebe Adams, Ed.M. to conduct a private evaluation of Evan and to help them “navigate [Evan]’s path.”[22] As an educational consultant and learning specialist in private practice, Ms. Adams generally receives a referral from parents, school districts, colleagues, physicians, or advocates, in response to which she explains her process and sends a packet to the family with additional information. (P-2; Adams, I: 155-56, 208-09; Mother, II: 350-51)

55. At Hearing, Ms. Adams testified in detail about reading methodologies, contrasting the whole language approach that has “morphed in (sic) over time to what is called balanced literacy,” and includes Lucy Calkins Units of Study and Fountas and Pinnell, with structured literacy, which is “based on phonics and direct explicit teaching of the units of language” and includes OG, RAVE-O, Wilson, LTRS, and Lindamood Bell.[23] She opined that structured literacy works and has been accepted under the “Science of Reading” as the right instructional approach for students. She noted that the International Dyslexia Association does not recommend balanced literacy programs for students with dyslexia, and that OG is the “gold standard” for these students. Ms. Adams testified that  best practice for a standard Orton-Gillingham session is 45 minutes. (Adams, I: 156-63, 165-67)

56. In October 2024, Ms. Adams conducted a parent intake, administered the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT-5) (Blue Form) and the Standardized Reading Inventory-2, Form-A, interviewed Evan, and observed the proposed program at Winn Brook. (Adams, I: 159-51. 209-10)

57. Before she evaluated Evan, Ms. Adams talked with Parents about his educational history and their concerns. She reviewed Evan’s IEP and other records from Belmont, concluding that her referral question involved a child “slow to acquire and be automatic with letter naming and reading and fluent word reading, which is interfering with comprehension, some executive function challenges, as well as some emerging increasing emotional fragility.”[24] (Adams, I: 168-69. 208-09, 213-14; Mother, II: 350-51)

58. On the WRAT-5, Evan scored in the Average range in all areas (Word Reading, Spelling, and Math Computation). On the Standardized Reading Inventory-2, which Ms. Adams administered in order to gather additional information about the quality of Evan’s reading fluency and prosody, he tested at the Instructional/Frustration level for both first- and second- grade passages. (P-2; Adams, I: 209-213)

59. On October 22, 2024, Ms. Adams observed the Winn Brook program Belmont had proposed for Evan. In her report, she noted that Ms. Eisner told her that five second- graders at Winn Brook were on IEPs, including Evan, and that four (again including Evan) have reading support. Ms. Eisner also shared with her that Ms. Carson would use structured, research-based, multisensory phonemic awareness instruction, phonics instruction, sight word recall, fluency, encoding, and comprehension instruction with Evan; that she uses OG materials from the Institute for Multi-Sensory Education for phonological awareness and direct phonics instruction; and that she uses Fountas and Pinnell Leveled Literacy Intervention to support comprehension and generalization of skills to connected text.[25] Staff also shared with Ms. Adams that Lucy Calkins Units of Study and Wilson Fundations are used for reading. During her time at Winn Brook, Ms. Adams observed math class; recess and lunch; English language arts (ELA) reading block; OG reading group; and writing. She left the ELA block in the middle to attend the OG group, then returned to ELA, as this is what Evan would have done had he been enrolled at Winn Brook. With the exception of the reading group taught by Ms. Carson, all academics were taught by Nicole Torniero.[26] (P-2, P-5, P-20; S-4; Adams, I: 216-19; Mother, II: 352-53)

First, Ms. Adams observed Evan’s proposed math class, where one teacher worked with 20 students. Several students left the room during class to receive services from a math specialist. The teacher began by reviewing strategies and guiding students in thinking about a concept. Students volunteered to share their ideas and were encouraged to have a growth mindset. The teacher faded cues to the students as they first practiced various strategies, then completed workbook pages independently while the teacher supported a small group of students. As students finished worksheets, they checked “unfinished work” folders and then worked on Chromebooks to practice math games. (P-2) At Hearing, Ms. Adams stated that although Evan feels that math is a relative strength, he is “at risk for being automatic with math facts” due to his dyslexia, in addition to his executive function challenges and comprehension, which would affect his ability to do word problems. She testified that an open-ended class where students may or may not get a full block of small-group instruction and may get pulled aside for extra help, would comprise modified grade-level work but would not provide Evan with the opportunity to work on foundational building blocks. (Adams, I: 173-74)

Ms. Adams then moved on to Fundations and Reader’s Workshop. This began with breathing and self-regulation activities through movement and a short video. Students were then given “doodle time” before they engaged in a discussion and “turn and talk” about a particular syllable type. Approximately 19-20 students worked on double vowel patterns, worked on Chromebooks using Lexia, or read on their Chromebooks from independent reading books. After 20 minutes, students were directed to their book bags, Raz-Kids, or EPIC, and the teacher brought a small group to the back table.[27] One student read aloud while the teacher provided feedback and asked questions. She appeared to be doing “running records.” In her report, Ms. Adams expressed concern that there appeared to be no lesson plan or agenda, and no direct instruction or reference to comprehension or vocabulary. Moreover, no data was collected while students were decoding, and sound review was cursory and divided among students. (P-2) At Hearing, Ms. Adams further expressed concern that students had limited oral reading practice during Reader’s Workshop to develop automaticity and fluency, as they worked on their own for extended periods of time. Although some children were reading in the back of the room with the teacher, Ms. Adams testified that she did not observe specific feedback or targeted skill instruction. She noted that although there was a Fundations lesson, the teacher appeared to compartmentalize “word work” versus “reading.” Fundations seemed to be done as an adjunct to balanced literacy such that there was “no cohesion or redundancy or overlap among the programs.” Ms. Adams believes that this lack of redundancy and explicit training would be difficult for Evan. According to Ms. Adams, Evan lacks the executive function skills to respond well to such a “fragmented” approach. (P-20; Adams, I: 178-82; Mother, II: 353-54)

During Ms. Carson’s specialized reading instruction, Ms. Adams observed two students working with one teacher. Ms. Adams described the lesson as having “some elements of what you know to be an Orton-Gillingham lesson . . . some phonemic awareness activities, some spelling, some reading of connected text.” She opined there was an insufficient amount of time for practice because there were two students struggling with the work, and it was not apparent whether they were on the same level. She testified that, in fact, the students received only about 25 minutes of actual instruction. Moreover, Ms. Carson did not appear to review the previous day’s lessons or take notes to gather information, and there was not much multisensory intervention such as manipulatives to reinforce skills. Ms. Adams expressed concern that Evan would not function well in a setting requiring this amount of self-directed learning and that the OG lesson was not, in fact, an OG lesson comprised of all required components delivered with fidelity, including instruction in comprehension and fluency.[28] In her report, Ms. Adams opined that Evan needs a language tutorial with one-to-one or one-to-two instruction that includes all elements of structured literacy. (P-2; Adams, I: 175-78, 185-87, 196)

During writing instruction, Ms. Adams saw the teacher model an activity about distinguishing between fact and opinion, then provide some guidelines before students returned to their desks to finish the task. Several students were pulled aside for help, but Ms. Adams described this as guided coaching, rather than explicit instruction. She expressed concern that Evan could not do this open-ended, high-level, grade-level task, given his lack of automaticity and efficiency. (P-2; Adams, I: 172-73)

Overall, Ms. Adams described a full-inclusion program with approximately 17 students engaging in “a lot of self-directed learning,” where a lesson was taught to the whole group, then students completed applied work on their own, on the computer for up to 40 minutes, or through individual help from the teacher. She did not see teachers taking notes about students’ progress or checking in with them to provide feedback as they worked independently. Ms. Adams concluded that the proposed program at Winn Brook did not prioritize Evan’s reading skills to the extent required, that it was deficient because it lacked a writing goal and specialized instruction in writing/written expression connected with that goal, and that there was too much independent work and computer work for Evan to succeed. Furthermore, Ms. Adams opined that a full-inclusion program is not appropriate for Evan, as he requires both direct and highly specialized instruction within a language-based environment to acquire skills, “be and feel genuinely included,” and follow the class flow. According to Ms. Adams, Evan’s “skills are too vulnerable to receive disparate approaches at different levels and with a range of methods.” As delivered at Winn Brook, reading interventions consist of multiple methods (Fundations, Orton-Gillingham, Units of Study and Fountas and Pinnell leveled readers) that “when combined do not represent a cohesive, planned, diagnostic prescriptive approach.” (P-2; Adams, I: 167-68, 170-72, 183-84, 218-20)

Ms. Adams recommended an intensive language-based program specifically designed for students with dyslexia, staffed by teachers with expertise in this area who can incorporate similar strategies across settings. (P-2, Adams, I: 187)

60. According to Ms. Torniero, who would have been Evan’s classroom teacher had he remained at Winn Brook, no student in her current class is on an IEP. Ms. Torniero explained that her class has clear expectations and consistent routines, which work well with her students. During the Hearing, Ms. Torniero reviewed the current schedule for her class. It includes a daily WINN block, structured such that students are assessed approximately every six weeks and based on the results and observations, students are grouped so as to receive what they need in reading (three days a week) and math (two days a week); after six weeks, they are reassessed and regrouped. Ms. Torniero is currently working one-to-one with a student during WINN block, although her largest group this year consisted of three children. Students who have met or exceeded benchmarks may work in larger literature circles, where a teacher sets goals, gets them started, and then regroups at the end. Throughout the day, students participate in calming breaks where they decompress; social emotional learning blocks and activities; and morning meetings and closing circles. They have math daily, and twice a week students participate in either social studies or science, usually in six-week cycles. Ms. Torniero uses Fundations for phonics and phonemic awareness, with several chunks of time per week reserved for explicit teaching and practice of skills and the strategies infused through other blocks such as reading and writing. Generally, two days a week Fundations and Reader’s Workshop are more integrated, that is, students in small groups apply the explicit skills that were taught the other three days, when Fundations and Reader’s Workshop were taught separately. Twice a week, students have explicit instruction in writing, with application and practice embedded in Reading Workshop blocks. They also participate in specials such as library, art, music, and physical education. (P-21; S-15; Torniero, I: 223-32, 252-55, 264-65)

According to Ms. Torniero, Winn Brook currently uses the Lucy Calkins Units of Study reading program. However, teachers create resources and materials to supplement the program heavily because it may not be robust enough for students reading at a higher level or may need to be restructured or broken down for other students. Second-grade teachers sometimes work together during Common Planning Time to build a resource library, pulling some of their supplemental resources from the Science of Reading. Over the last three years, teachers have infused elements of OG into their reading lessons. Although classroom teachers have not been trained in OG, they see many specialists using the methodology and have “adapted a lot of the Fundations materials to parallel what the Orton-Gillingham strategies of instruction are like.” For example, in addition to the magnet boards used with the Fundations program, general education teachers have incorporated sound boxes with colored chips similar to those used by special educators and reading specialists. According to Ms. Torniero, these types of interventions have been positive for all students. In addition to these activities, read-alouds are embedded throughout reading blocks and Ms. Torniero sometimes reads chapter books to the whole class. She testified that depending on a student’s area of need, audio versions of books and book previews can be provided during WINN block or at other times. (Torniero, I: 235-40, 260-61, 264)

Ms. Tornerio described a recent lesson in her reading class, where students were in “book clubs.” She taught a mini-lesson on character, modeling how to brainstorm traits and evidence; students then worked on their books using sticky notes and whiteboards before gathering in small groups to share; and, finally, shared with the class. In the remaining class time, Ms. Torniero met with a small group that needed additional Fundations review, going over drills and dictations, and reading decodable texts. Ms. Torniero acknowledged that her lesson might differ if she had a student with a profile similar to Evan’s in the class; for example, she could preview and/or drill content and vocabulary during WINN block. (Toerniero, I: 232-35)

61. At Hearing, Ms. Torniero testified about significant inaccuracies in Ms. Adam’s observation report. First, according to Ms. Torniero, Chromebooks are not used with second-grade students. In math, she taught a structured lesson where all students used whiteboards for a formative assessment, which enabled her to identify which children to pull during independent practice. For the last 10 minutes of class, students used a differentiated math program called DreamBox, which is not a game; DreamBox is used two to three times a week. Regarding Ms. Adams’ report about Fundations and Reader’s Workshop, Ms. Torniero stated that according to her slides from the day of the observation, students did not watch a video, nor were they working on vowel teams. Four students worked with Ms. Torniero, while other students applied the Fundations patterns in their independent work. She hypothesized that Ms. Adams may have been with Ms. Carson during the portion of her class when students reviewed together, shared their responses, and the whole class established the goal for the next round, which was the application in their independent reading. Ms. Torniero testified that for reading, technology is used for 10-15 minutes per day on a program called EPIC that provides highly differentiated assignments for each student. She also clarified that the “doodle” time referenced by Ms. Adams was an accommodation to permit the five students in her class on 504 plans for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder to settle in at the beginning of class, and that students were utilizing flexible seating, rather than being removed from the group during class. (Torniero, I: 241-46)

62. Approximately halfway through the school year, on January 15, 2025, Ms. Adams conducted an observation of Evan at Carroll at Parents’ request. She observed him in math and language classes taught by Ms. Cook and OG tutoring with Ms. Champa. During math, Evan was one of eight students with one teacher. Students were presented with the agenda, given a paper reinforcing the directions, and the directions were reviewed. Class rules were reinforced and modeled, and students were presented with examples. Students practiced orally prior to working on their own. During independent practice, students who needed extra help or a little more time worked with the teacher or an assistant.[29] Evan was compliant, on task, and productive. He was showing some independence in a “highly scaffolded small group and then was able to offer support and guidance to a peer.” There was a short movement break before language. Students reviewed seasons and months, then read and discussed a poem. Ms. Adams observed that OG strategies, such as reminders, cues, and tapping out, were incorporated into the lesson. Staff reported to Ms. Adams that Story Grammar Marker is used to support retelling and recall of story narratives and as a guide to sentence-level production, while RAVE-O is used for vocabulary and language support during this class. Evan was focused and engaged. Staff shared that in addition to phonemic awareness, a particular focus for Evan in ELA and other classes is on managing reading and complex written language.  During recess, Evan interacted effectively with peers and adults. Ms. Adams then observed Evan in his 45-minute one-to-one OG tutorial, which she reported incorporated all six components of standard OG practice. She noted that he appeared to have a nice rapport with his teacher, who had established clear routines that he had internalized. He responded well to the teacher’s pacing, chunking, and guided practice. Ms. Adams concluded, overall, that Evan shows an eagerness to learn at Carroll and is “less hampered by his worries about not understanding the assignment or about falling behind peers.” According to Ms. Adams, Evan continues to show challenges with language organization, managing multipart tasks, and recalling orthographic patterns, as well as applying skills to more complex and abstract texts and languages. He benefits from the intensity of two small-group language classes focusing on oral language, prewriting, vocabulary, word study and comprehension, and one-to-one OG instruction. Ms. Adams recommended that Evan continue with his current placement in a language-based program, as he will “continue to need this level of intensity in elementary school.” (P-3; Adams, I: 196-204; Mother, II: 356)

63. Belmont convened a Team meeting on January 21, 2025 to review Ms. Adams’ report and conduct Evan’s annual review. Among other things, the Team shared that no students in Ms. Torniero’s class had a learning profile similar to Evan’s, and that therefore Ms. Adams had not observed what she might have seen had he been in the class. The Team also reviewed progress reports from Carroll. (P-10; S-1; Carson, II: 424-27; Eisner, III: 550-52)

64. Following the meeting, Belmont proposed an IEP dated January 21, 2025 to January 20, 2026 (2025-2026 IEP). The proposed IEP included a plethora of accommodations and a Reading goal with C-Grid Reading services (5 x 30 minutes/5-day cycle), A-Grid Consultation (1 x 15 minutes/5-day cycle), and ESY (4 x 75 minutes/5-day cycle). (P-10; S-1; Carson, II: 428-29; Eisner, III: 553)

65. On March 4, 2025, Parents partially accepted the IEP, specifically accepting the added accommodations and partially accepting ESY. They rejected the absence of several accommodations and noted that ESY should be “with an appropriate experienced tutor trained in the methodologies used at the Carroll School.” Parents further rejected changes to the language of the IEP, specifically: a change in Accommodations and Modifications from “small group instruction whenever possible” to “access to small group instruction for literacy and writing tasks, as needed;” and the removal of “Structured, research based multi-sensory” and “encoding” under Instruction. Parents rejected the proposed full-inclusion program and informed Belmont that they would continue Evan’s placement at Carroll for the remainder of the 2024-2025 school year and for the 2025-2026 school year. (P-10; S-1; Eisner, III: 556-57)

66. Carroll has four student conferences a year and issues three progress reports; the latter describes skills that teachers are highlighting in each class and the student’s level of independence in those skills. Carroll also issues Student Data Reports for each student that contain information regarding curriculum-based and standardized assessments. (P-15, P-16, P-17, P-24; Colman, I: 121-27; Mother, II: 348-49)

67. According to his first trimester Carroll progress report, as of November 2024, Evan was Approaching Independence in all Work/Study Habits categories and Social Learning categories, with the exception of an Independent rating for demonstrating a positive attitude. In his RAVE-O Flex course, Evan needed Significant Support in one Reading and Spelling category and Moderate Support in four categories; he was Approaching Independence in the last Reading and Spelling category addressed and in the three Work/Study Habits categories. In his Language course, Evan required Moderate Support in Writing Expression. In Listening Comprehension, Evan required Significant Support in one category and Moderate Support in one category; he was Approaching Independence in three categories. In Oral Language, Evan required Moderate Support in two categories and was Approaching Independence in three. In Math class, Evan required Moderate Support in seven categories and was Approaching Independence in seven. Evan’s OG Focus Area course was divided into Oral Language, where he was receiving Moderate Support for four categories; Reading Mechanics, where he was receiving Moderate Support in four categories and Approaching Independence in two; Reading Comprehension, where he required Moderate Support in one category and was Approaching Independence in one; Writing Mechanics, where he required Moderate Support in all categories; and Work Habits and Social Skills, where he was receiving Moderate Support in one category, Approaching Independence in one category, and was Independent in the rest. (P-16)

68. According to Evan’s second trimester report card, in RAVE-O Flex, he had moved from Significant Support to Moderate support in one Reading and Spelling category; his other ratings remained the same. In Work/Study habits, he moved from approaching Independence to Independent in all three categories. In his Language course, Evan moved from Significant Support to Approaching Independence in one Listening Comprehension category and from Moderate Support to Approaching Independence in one Oral language category. All other ratings remained the same. In his Math course, Evan moved from Moderate Support to Approaching Independence in two categories; all other categories remained the same. In Evan’s OG Focus Area course, several new categories were added. Evan moved from Moderate Support to Approaching Independence in three categories and from Approaching Independence to Independence in one; all other ratings remained the same. (P-17)

69. At Evan’s spring conference, which occurred on or about May 30, 2025, Ms. Cook reported that Evan had made great progress, increasing from 50 sight words to 400 during the school year. He had increased his ability to apply decoding strategies to connected text and consistently applied strategies for reading and spelling. Evan had also made progress in producing and recognizing rhyming words accurately, growing his vocabulary, improving his fluency and decoding skills, and – with some support – was able to discern whether a given word’s meaning is a noun, verb, or adjective. (P-26; Mother, II: 349)

70. As explained by Ms. Colman, Evan’s Student Data Report demonstrates that he arrived at Carroll with a strong foundation in phonemic awareness and that his curriculum-based assessments show some growth in decoding from the fall of 2024 to the spring of 2025. (P-24; Colman, I: 127-34) Ms. Adams testified that this report evinces improvement in decoding and encoding, as well as a significant improvement in sight words. (Adams, I: 205-06) Ms. Gibson, who had worked as a teacher and tutor at Carroll for five years, also testified about Evan’s Student Data Report. Specifically, Ms. Gibson testified that the report shows Evan is making progress in phonemic awareness, decoding of nonsense words, and sight word reading. (Gibson, II; 296-300)

71. According to Mother, Evan has not displayed any behavior issues since he left Winn Brook. He is now happy and confident. He is more comfortable writing and is no longer afraid to read. Evan is proud of what he is learning and the progress he is making at school. (Mother, II: 340-42)

3. DISCUSSION

It is not disputed that Evan 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. [30] To prevail in their claim for reimbursement  for their unilateral placement of Evan at Carroll, an unapproved program, during the 2024-2025 school year, Parents must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Belmont failed to propose IEPs reasonably calculated to provide Evan with a FAPE during that school year and that Carroll was appropriate for him[31]

1. Legal Standards: FAPE and Unilateral Placement

1. The Substantive Right to a Free Appropriate Public Education in the Least Restrictive Environment[32]

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.”[33] 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.[34] To provide a FAPE, the IEP must be individually designed and reasonably calculated to confer a meaningful benefit.[35] 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.”[36] These elements should incorporate parental concerns; the student’s strengths, disabilities, recent evaluations; and the child’s potential for growth.[37]  The goals contained in an IEP should be “appropriately ambitious.”[38] Whether the IEP meets these standards for a particular child must be determined in the context of his individual potential.[39] An IEP “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances” will be substantively sound.[40] 

Under state and federal special education law, a school district has an obligation to provide the services that comprise a FAPE in the least restrictive environment.[41] 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.”[42]  “The goal, then, is to find the least restrictive educational environment that will accommodate the child’s legitimate needs.”[43] For most children, a FAPE “will involve integration in the regular classroom and individualized special education calculated to achieve advancement from grade to grade.”[44] 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.”[45]

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.’”[46]

Here, as Parents seek reimbursement for unilateral placement of Evan at Carroll, I measure the IEPs proposed for him during the relevant time period against the substantive standards outlined above. If I determine that one or more of the IEPs was not reasonably calculated to provide Evan with a FAPE, I must then turn to standards governing unilateral placement to determine whether Parents are entitled to reimbursement.[47]

2. Unilateral Placement

When parents elect to place a student unilaterally in a private school notwithstanding the availability of a FAPE through the school district, they retain responsibility for the cost of that education.[48] However, parents who enroll a student in a private school without the consent of or referral by the school district may obtain reimbursement as an equitable remedy under certain circumstances.[49] The IDEA provides that a Hearing Officer may order reimbursement for the cost of that placement if she finds that a district had not made a FAPE available to the child in a timely manner prior to the parents’ unilateral placement.[50] Hearing Officers and courts have interpreted this section of the IDEA to allow reimbursement for a unilateral placement when: (1) the school district had not made a free appropriate public education available to the student prior to that enrollment; and (2) the private school placement was appropriate.[51] Unlike an IEP proposed by a school district, a unilateral private school placement need not meet all of the requirements of a FAPE to be appropriate.[52] Where parents have rejected an inappropriate IEP and placed their child unilaterally, to qualify for reimbursement the private placement must only “offer at least some element of special education services in which the public school placement was deficient.”[53] The reasonableness of the private placement will depend upon the nexus between the special education required and the special education provided, such that a unilateral placement is only appropriate if it provides an education “specifically designed to meet the unique needs” of the child.[54]

In addition to this substantive standard, there is a notice requirement. Even where parents have established that a district failed to offer a FAPE and that they selected a placement that was appropriate for their child, the IDEA allows a Hearing Officer to reduce or deny reimbursement due to parents’ failure to provide appropriate notice of their intent to place the child unilaterally.[55]

2. Analysis

Here, Parents argue that the Amended 2024-2025 IEP and the 2025-2026 IEP proposed by Belmont for Evan were not reasonably calculated to provide him with a FAPE, that Carroll is appropriate for him, and that they are entitled to reimbursement for their unilateral placement of Evan at Carroll for the 2024-2025 school year. Belmont contends that both IEPs were and are reasonably calculated to provide Evan with a FAPE in the LRE, and, consequently, Parents’ requests for reimbursement of tuition and fees associated with Carroll and for private tutoring should be denied.

1. Evan’s Profile

The dispute in this matter is not about Evan’s profile. The parties agree that he is kind, curious, and hard-working; that he presents with a relatively solid cognitive profile; and that his FSIQ is in the High Average range. The parties also agree that Evan has a SLD; struggles with oral fluency and automaticity, in particular; and requires specialized multisensory instruction in phonics, phonemic awareness, sight word recall, fluency, and comprehension, as well as extra time and a number of accommodations to learn and demonstrate his learning.

Parents believe that Evan requires OG to make progress. He did not receive OG in kindergarten, but his June 2023 progress report, developed after approximately three months of services delivered pursuant to his fully accepted 2023-2024 IEP, reflected growth, as did his kindergarten report card. Evan had met many DIBELS kindergarten benchmarks and was above the benchmark for phoneme segmentation fluency. He was making progress on all objectives associated with his reading goal. At the time Evan’s Team convened for his annual review in February 2023, he had made gains on DIBELS progress monitoring and Fountas and Pinnell, moving from Level C (mid-kindergarten) in June 2023 to Level E (beginning of first grade) in February 2024. He had mastered five of the eight benchmarks associated with his Reading goal, was close to mastery of a sixth, and was making progress on the remaining two. When District monitoring revealed regression over the February break, the Team proposed ESY (1 x 75 minutes/week). Parents accepted this revised 2024-2025 IEP in full.

Beginning in December 2023, following Ms. Carson’s OG training, the core of Evan’s specialized reading instruction was OG, though Ms. Carson incorporated elements of 95 Percent and Fountas and Pinnell. Evan’s first-grade general education literacy instruction was also infused with OG concepts, though it included a variety of programs such as Lexia, EPIC, Raz-Kids, Heggerty, and Units of Study.

Dr. Kassissieh’s neuropsychological evaluation, conducted at the end of April 2024, emailed to Belmont at the end of May 2024, and considered by the Team at a meeting on June 3, 2024, revealed many scores in the Average range on both cognitive and academic measures. Evan struggled primarily with timed tasks involving fluency; rapid naming; sight word reading and phonemic decoding efficiency; and organization, planning, and integration of information. Dr. Kassisieh’s testing also demonstrated Evan’s growth on WIAT-IV and CTOPP-2 scores since Belmont’s testing 15 months earlier. She recommended additional accommodations and reading instruction utilizing particular programs to support Evan.

At the time the Team proposed the Amended 2024-2025 IEP that Parents partially rejected and now challenge, the parties did not disagree about Evan’s cognitive profile or his difficulties with reading. The disagreement centered on what he needed to make effective progress in the least restrictive environment. Notably, Dr. Kassissieh had not asserted that Evan was failing to make progress commensurate with his potential, nor had she (or anyone else at that time) recommended a placement other than full inclusion.    

2. Amended 2024-2025 IEP     

In June 2024, when Belmont proposed Evan’s Amended 2024-2025 IEP,[56] the operative IEP at the time Parents placed Evan unilaterally, the Team had before it the results of the District’s January 2023 initial assessment and Dr. Kassissieh’s April 2024 report, as well as information about Evan’s progress while receiving services pursuant to his 2023-2024 IEP and the revised 2024-2025 IEP. While Evan was still in the yellow, or “at risk” category on some classroom assessments administered at the end of the year, he had made progress throughout first grade, including in areas of difficulty such as letter naming fluency, phoneme segmentation, and reading fluency and decoding of nonsense words.

Although Parents requested that a writing goal be developed for Evan at the June 3, 2024 Team meeting, and Dr. Kassissieh had recommended a writing goal to include support for writing high-frequency words and for practicing coordination of phonological, orthographic, and morphological processes, both Ms. McKenzie and Ms. Carson reported that Evan’s writing was developmentally appropriate. The Team determined that Evan’s spelling and editing weaknesses, as seen in the classroom and recognized by Dr. Kassissieh, could continue to be addressed within the encoding benchmarks of his Reading goal. The Team further responded appropriately to Parents’ concerns about Evan’s recent emotional difficulties by providing for a check-in with counseling staff at the beginning of the new school year and ongoing support as needed.

In addition to a writing goal, in her report Dr. Kassissieh recommended that Evan continue with the sound-symbol reading support he had been receiving, and she recommended additional programming to include more repeated exposure to words, the opportunity to read aloud with immediate correction, morphology-based fluency work, multisensory instruction, and active reading strategies using an evidence-based reading comprehension program. She did not specify that Evan required OG, nor did she recommend a substantially separate language-based setting. The Team responded by proposing an additional weekly 30-minute reading pull-out during the school year (increasing from 4 x 30 minutes/week to 5 x 30 minutes/week) and an additional 225 minutes per week of ESY reading services (increasing from 1 x 75 minutes/week to 4 x 75 minutes/week). The Team also incorporated many accommodations suggested by Dr. Kassissieh. Immediately following this IEP proposal, Dr. Kassissieh indicated to Parents that she believed the proposed increase was appropriate for Evan, though she acknowledged Parents’ concern about service delivery occurring in a small group rather than one-to-one. At Hearing, Dr. Kassisieh testified that she believed additional time beyond the increase proposed in the service delivery grid was required to incorporate all of the interventions she had recommended, and she expressed concern about the dilution of services in a small group setting. Still, however, she did not endorse a need for a substantially separate language-based program for Evan to make progress,[57] nor did she indicate (at the Team meeting or at Hearing) that the progress he had made since Belmont’s initial testing in January 2023 was not effective or commensurate with his abilities.

In their partial rejection of the Amended 2024-2025 IEP, submitted in early July 2024, Parents noted their objections to the absence of a writing goal as well as to the reading service provider; the omission of goals in reading fluency, reading comprehension, reading rate; and the failure to identify OG as the methodology for direct instruction. These requests went beyond Dr. Kassissieh’s recommendations, as she had not specified that for Evan to make effective progress his reading instruction must be OG, nor had she suggested that separate goals were required in each of the areas identified by Parents.[58]

Given the information before the Team, and the absence of data or recommendations to support many of Parents’ requests, the Amended 2024-2025 IEP  at the time it was proposed in June 2024, was reasonably calculated to provide Evan with a FAPE in the LRE.[59] This IEP was designed to meet Evan’s needs, based on the results of testing and the progress he had made thus far pursuant to the revised 2024-2025 IEP, and it was reasonably calculated to continue to confer a meaningful benefit.[60]

3. 2025-2026 IEP

Belmont convened Evan’s Team on January 21, 2025 to review Ms. Adams’ report (which included the results of testing she had conducted in October 2024 as well as her observations at Winn Brook in October 2024 and at Carroll in January 2025), and to develop his 2025-2026 IEP. In addition to Ms. Adams’ report, the Team had before it Carroll progress reports.

 According to Ms. Adams, Evan’s proposed classroom at Winn Brook with Ms. Torniero required too much self-direction and lacked the redundancy, explicit training, and oral reading practice he needs to make progress.[61] Yet because Evan was not in the class, nor were any of the students in attendance on IEPs, much less IEPs for SLDs in reading, it is difficult to determine whether the instruction would have been different had he been there. Even so, the classroom Ms. Adams described in her report and through testimony evidenced a structured approach to teaching and learning, with clear expectations and consistent routines. Across subjects, students participated in whole-group instruction, practiced strategies, and worked individually, with opportunities to participate in a small group with the teacher if they needed additional support. During literacy instruction, students worked on syllables and Fundations patterns; at Hearing, Ms. Torniero explained that Winn Brook teachers had created resources and materials to supplement the Lucy Calkins reading program with activities similar to those used within OG instruction. Ms. Adams also expressed concern that the specialized reading instruction Evan would have attended with Ms. Carson did not follow the OG prescription with fidelity and, among other things, would not have allowed for sufficient time to practice. Although one of her criticisms was that the instruction was not one-to-one, Ms. Adams recommended a language tutorial for Evan that is either one-to-one or one-to-two. According to Ms. Carson, Evan would likely have been grouped one-to-two with one of the students Ms. Adams observed.

Much testimony was offered at Hearing regarding various approaches to the teaching of reading – whole language, structured literacy, and balanced literacy. Parents appeared very concerned about Winn Brook staff members’ familiarity with the Science of Reading and their use of whole language and balanced literacy approaches in the classroom. Yet their own witness, Evan’s OG tutor, Ms. Gibson, acknowledged that she was not familiar with the Science of Reading and referenced Lucy Calkins as a structured literacy approach.  Ms. Gibson did, nevertheless, testify credibly about  Evan’s responsiveness to and growth with the one-to-one OG instruction she provided him between May and August 2024. It is clear Evan benefitted from this tutoring, described by several witnesses as the “gold standard” of reading instruction for students with dyslexia.

Dr. Kassissieh and Ms. Gibson both expressed concern that delivery of OG instruction in a small group, as opposed to one-to-one, generally would not permit sufficient tailoring to individual student needs. Yet according to Ms. Colman, OG tutorials at Carroll may be comprised of one teacher and up to four students (though  Evan was in a one-to-one tutorial during second grade). Parents also expressed concern about Ms. Carson’s lack of OG certification. However, Evan’s tutorial at Carroll was led by a graduate intern who had obtained neither her OG certification nor her teaching certification at the time she taught him.  In addition, his science teacher lacked teaching certification.

I credit the testimony of Mother and Ms. Adams regarding Evan’s success at Carroll. The question is not, however, whether a fully integrated language-based program is beneficial to Evan, but whether one must be provided by Belmont in order to provide him a FAPE.

Although Ms. Adams recommended placement in an intensive language-based program for students with dyslexia, I find, based on the evidence before me, that Belmont is not obligated to provide such a program. With the exception of Ms. Adam’s report, nothing provided to the Team in January 2025, when Belmont proposed Evan’s 2025-2026 IEP, suggested that Evan could not make effective progress with the services proposed by Belmont. In addition to Grid-C reading (5 x 30 per 5-day cycle during the year and 4 x 75 per 5-day cycle for ESY), Evan’s 2025-2026 IEP specifies that information will be presented through multisensory teaching techniques for reading and spelling, visual supports, and pairing of auditory with visual information, among other things; that he will have extra time, as needed, for reading and writing tasks, assessments, and before responding, as well as the opportunity to re-read text more than once to improve fluency and comprehension; and that he will receive access to small group instruction for literacy and writing tasks, as needed.

Based on the information available to the Team at the time the 2025-2026 IEP was developed and proposed, I conclude that this IEP was, and is, reasonably calculated to provide Evan with a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. Although OG, and a fully integrated language-based program, may have allowed Evan to make effective progress, Parents have neither met their burden to establish that these elements are required for him to do so nor have they proven that Belmont’s IEP cannot similarly allow him to make effective progress.[62]

Because Parents failed to prove that the IEPs proposed by Belmont were not reasonably calculated to provide Evan with a FAPE, I do not reach the question of whether Carroll was appropriate for him.[63]

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

After reviewing the record in its entirety in the context of relevant statutory and case law, I conclude that Parents failed to meet their burden to establish that the Amended 2024-2025 IEP and/or the 2025-2026 IEP proposed for Evan were not and are not reasonably calculated to provide him with a FAPE. Therefore, Parents are not entitled to reimbursement for their private placement of Evan at Carroll for the 2024-2025 school year.

By the Hearing Officer:

Amy M. Reichbach

/s/  Amy M. Reichbach

Dated: August 19, 2025     

---

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

[2] On May 23, 2025, Parents filed a Motion to Compel Discovery. The District filed its Opposition on the same date. During a Conference Call the following day, the parties agreed that no formal Ruling was required.

[3] 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.

[4] Ms. Carson has been a special educator for approximately 15 years and has provided academic services for students grades K through 8. She has been providing academic services for students in kindergarten through second grade within Belmont for six and a half years. Although she testified that she earned a master’s degree in moderate disabilities in 2023, the version of Ms. Carson’s resume submitted into evidence suggests that she holds a bachelor’s degree in special education and elementary education and has earned nine credits toward a master’s degree in autism spectrum disorders. She also holds professional licensure from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) in moderate disabilities, Pre-K to 8, and initial licensure in elementary education. (S-16A; Carson, II: 384-86) DESE’s educator license search shows that Ms. Carson obtained an initial license in elementary education in 2003 and her professional license in moderate disabilities, Pre-K to 8, on September 20, 2023. (P-20; Carson, II: 431-32)

[5] The evaluator administered the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-5, the Expressive Vocabulary Test-3, and the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-5 to measure Evan’s language skills; and the Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation-3, Hodson Assessment of Phonological Patterns, and a spontaneous speech sample to measure speech articulation. (P-4; S-7)

[6] Evan’s occupational therapy testing consisted of behavioral observations, the Developmental Test of Visual Motor Integration, and the Test of Visual-Perceptual Skills (non-motor) – Fourth Edition. (P-4; S-8)

[7] The meeting date is unclear from the evidence. According to the Administrative Date Sheet associated with the IEP dated February 27, 2023 to February 26, 2024 (2023-2024 IEP), the meeting was held on February 27, 2023, but the N1 mentions a Team meeting to review initial evaluation results on March 9, 2023. (P-5; S-4)

[8] Ms. McKenzie holds a master’s degree in early childhood education and a professional DESE license in early childhood education, PreK-2. She has been teaching for five years, all in Belmont. In the fall of 2022, Ms. McKenzie completed the same 30-hour OG training Ms. Carson did. (S-16C; McKenzie, II: 489-91, 498)

[9] The record does not reflect whether this student was on an IEP.

[10] Although the N1 lists a meeting on March 12, 2024, the data sheet associated with the revised 2024-2025 IEP lists a meeting date of March 11, 2024. (P-7; S-3)

[11] Dr. Kassissieh is the Founder of Northern Neuropsychology, LLC, and maintains a private practice wherein she conducts neuropsychological, psychological, and academic testing. She holds a Psy.D. and is licensed by the Massachusetts Division of Professional Licensure as a Psychologist and Health Service Provider.  Prior to her current work, Dr. Kassissieh was a teacher, worked at a therapeutic school, and supervised pre-doctoral students conducting neuropsychological evaluations. Dr. Kassissieh has conducted over 600 neuropsychological assessments over the course of her career, primarily with children between ages six and 18. At Hearing, she described a neuropsychological assessment as a “combination of instruments that are used to . . . better understand a student’s . . . cognitive profile, academic abilities, [and] psychological developmental needs, [and] a process of collecting clinical information, history, using observation, using the way the data is captured, and then using [her] clinical experience and [her] training to bring all the information together to answer specific questions.” (P-18; Kassissieh, I: 25-28)

[12] Dr. Kassissieh’s testing consisted of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – Fifth Edition (WISC-V); Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children – Second Edition (KABC-II), Selected; Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure test (ROCF); Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing – Second Edition (CTOPP-2); Grey Oral Reading Test – Fifth Edition (GORT-5); Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement – Third Edition (KTEA-3); Rapid Automatic Naming – Rapid Alternating Stimulus (RAN-RAS); Reversals Frequency Test; Test of Word Reading Efficiency – Second Edition (TOWRE-2); and Weschler Individual Achievement Test – Fourth Edition (WIAT-IV). Dr. Kassissieh also administered the Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC-3), Parent and Teacher; BROWN Executive Functioning/Attention (EF/A) Scale: Parent and Teacher; DSM-V ADHD Checklist; and social emotional/projective testing measures. (P-1; S-19) Dr. Kassissieh did not speak with any of Evan’s teachers or observe him in school in connection with her evaluation. (Kassissieh, I: 74)

[13] At Hearing, Mother testified that both Father and Evan’s maternal grandmother had noticed behavioral issues in Evan around this time. One night he told Mother that he did not want to go to school the next day, and another night he told her, “Mom, I don’t like life.” (Mother, II: 328-29)

[14] Ms. Gibson has a master’s degree in elementary education and worked for five years at Carroll as an OG tutor and teacher of history and language arts. Since 2022, Ms. Gibson has maintained a full-time private practice consisting of OG tutorials. She is certified at the Associate level in Orton-Gillingham, meaning she completed significant training and coursework with an accredited institution, including 10 hours of one-to-one lessons with students observed by an OG Fellow. She completed this work while teaching at Carroll, beginning the summer prior to her employment. To maintain the Associate level certificate, Ms. Gibson must complete at least 10 hours of continued learning per year. (Gibson, II: 274-79)

[15] At Hearing, Mother testified that Evan told her that his tutor and Ms. McKenzie were teaching him the same way, but Ms. Carson was teaching him differently, from which Mother inferred that Ms. Carson was not doing OG with him. She made this assumption, in part, because of her awareness that Ms. McKenzie is OG trained, as Ms. McKenzie shared this with her toward the end of the school year and she had heard this information from friends in the Winn Brook community. (Mother, II: 331-32)

[16] Ms. Eisner has been a Team Chair in Belmont for four years, before which she worked as a school psychologist in Belmont for 12 years. She holds a master’s degree in school psychology and a Certificate of Advanced Graduate Study (CAGS). Ms. Eisner is licensed by DESE as a school psychologist and special education administrator. (S-16E; Eisner, III: 544-46)

[17] Ms. McKenzie acknowledged at Hearing that the dictation assessment is part of the Reading Recovery Program, a balanced literacy approach. (McKenzie, III: 533)

[18] As the Assistant Division Head for Carroll’s lower school, which includes grades 1 through 5, Ms. Colman works with a team of administrators to oversee the educational program, including curriculum, instruction, and day-to-day operations. She also serves on the senior academic leadership team with colleagues in Carroll’s other divisions, working on areas such as professional development and training. Ms. Colman currently teaches a “flex block” in grade 5, focusing on cognitive training and academic intervention in the language domains, and she coaches other staff. Ms. Colman testified that she holds DESE certification in early childhood, children with and without special needs, and licensure as an elementary level assistant principal/principal. (Colman, I: 89- 90) On cross-examination, Ms. Colman acknowledged that DESE no longer considers the category of early childhood certification she earned to be a special education certification. (Colman, I: 148-49) Prior to working at Carroll, Ms. Colman taught in several different public school districts, ultimately moving into special education and then becoming a Team Chair. At Carroll, she began as the director of curriculum for the lower school division. (Colman, I: 137-38)

[19] At the time she taught Evan, Ms. Cook held DESE certification in early childhood education, students with and without disabilities, grades PreK-3, at the professional level; her certification was set to expire in July 2025. As Ms. Colman acknowledged, DESE no longer considers this category of license to be a special education certification. Ms. Cook also holds a master’s degree in early childhood education and, prior to Carroll, she taught in several private schools and one public school. (P-25; S-23A; Colman, I: 148-49)

[20] The internship program in which Ms. Champa was enrolled is a collaboration between Lesley University, Buckingham Brown & Nichols (BB&N), and Carroll. Interns take graduate classes through Lesley and at Carroll and complete internships at BB&N and/or Carroll. Through this program, which is one year long, students work toward certification in Orton-Gillingham, meet weekly with a Fellow at Carroll to develop lesson plans, keep track of the curriculum being developed for the tutorial, and assess data. (Colman, I: 117-19, 140-41) Ms. Colman described this internship as a residency-based program, where residents are “more integrated into the program than a student teacher would be,” in that they “hit the ground running in[] terms of their actual teaching,” in contrast to student teachers who are usually observed more often. (Colman, I: 140-41)

[21] As of the Hearing, Ms. Champa had not yet earned her DESE certification. In addition to her OG certification, she expected to earn her Massachusetts Initial License in Moderate Disabilities, PreK-8, and her master’s degree in moderate disabilities, in June 2025. (P-25; S-23C; Colman, I: 140-41)

[22] Ms. Adams holds a master’s degree in education (Reading, Language and Learning Disabilities) and a master’s degree in social work with a concentration in Children and Families. She works as an Academic Evaluator/Consultant for Children and Adolescent Testing Services at McLean Hospital and in private practice as a Learning Specialist/Educational Consultant. Ms. Adams began her career tutoring, teaching, and training in California at the Landmark school, a specialized private school program for students with dyslexia and language-based learning disabilities. She has also worked as a reading specialist; at Tufts Medical Center conducting educational assessments as part of a team administering multidisciplinary evaluations, a position that included program observations and attendance at Team meetings; and as a private tutor, clinical instructor, and social worker. Both at Tufts and in her private practice, Ms. Adams has conducted observations of children in their programs and proposed programs across general education, public school, and private school settings. (P-19; Adams, 150-54)

[23] Ms. Adams testified that aspects of Fundations are derivatives of structured literacy that may be used in general education with a whole class. (Adams, I: 164-65)

[24] When she was asked during cross-examination which progress reports she reviewed in connection with her evaluation, Ms. Adams could not recall whether she had seen a progress report from Carroll. In fact, one had not yet been issued. She also could not recall whether she had reviewed Belmont’s progress reports. (Adams, I: 214-16)

[25] At Hearing, Ms. Adams testified that she understood Ms. Carson was using Fountas and Pinnell Leveled Literacy Intervention (LLI) to support Evan’s comprehension and generalization of skills to connected text and  that it is her understanding that the recommendation for LLI is 5 x 30 minutes per week, but that Evan’s IEP proposed 5 x 30 minutes per week total for reading instruction. (Adams, I: 193-95)

[26] Ms. Torniero has been a Belmont teacher for 23 years. She holds a master’s degree in reading in addition to DESE licensure for grades 1 through 6. (Torniero, I: 221-23)

[27] Ms. Adams’ report refers to “another small group,” but she does not mention a first small group. (P-2)

[28] At Hearing, Ms. Carson objected to Ms. Adams’ description of her lesson. She explained that she was using OG materials to deliver instruction appropriate for her students’ IEP goals and objectives, including phonological skills, segmentation, Elkonin Boxes for encoding, decodable texts, etc. (Carson, II: 426-27) Ms. Carson also testified that Evan would likely have been grouped for reading instruction with one of the two students observed by Ms. Adams, but that grouping decisions would have been made based on students’ incoming data. (Carson, II: 459-60)

[29] Ms. Adams’ report references a math class with eight students and one teacher, and no assistant is mentioned. However, at Hearing Ms. Adams testified that in math, students who needed extra help “worked with Ms. Cook, and then there was another assistant that was in the room to support students that needed a little extra practice. So eight students and two adults.” (P-1; Adams, I: 198)

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

[31] See Florence Cnty. Sch Dist. Four v. Carter ex rel. Carter, 507 U.S. 10, 15 (1993).

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

[33] 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A).

[34] 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).

[35] 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).

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

[37] 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).

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

[39] See Rowley, 458 U.S. at 201; In Re: Boston Public Schools, BSEA #1308779 (Berman, 2014).

[40] Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 403.

[41] 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).

[42] 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A); C.D., 924 F. 3d at 631 (internal citations omitted).

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

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

[45] 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).

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

[47] See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(C)(ii); Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Dept. of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 369-70 (1985); In re: Uma, BSEA #2103885 (Reichbach, 2021); see also Schoenfeld v. Parkway Sch. Dist., 138 F.3d 379, 382 (8th Cir. 1998) (“Reimbursement for private education costs is appropriate only when public school placement under an individual education plan (IEP) violates IDEA because a child’s needs are not met”).

[48] See 34 CFR 300.148.

[49] See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(C)(ii); Sch. Union No. 27 v Ms. C., 518 F.3rd 31, 34-35 (1st Cir. 2008); Diaz-Fonseca v. Puerto Rico, 451 F.3d 13, 31 (1st Cir. 2006).

[50] See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(C)(ii).

[51] See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(C)(ii); Burlington, 471 U.S. 359 at 369-70; Schoenfeld, 138 F.3d at 382; In re: Uma; In re: Medfield Public Schools, BSEA #077260 (Crane, 2007). See also Florence Cnty., 507 U.S. at 15 (Parents who place their children unilaterally “are entitled to reimbursement only if a federal court concludes both that the public placement violated IDEA and that the private school placement was proper under the Act” (emphasis in original)).

[52] See Florence Cnty., 507 U.S. at 13-14; Mr. I. v. Maine Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 55, 480 F.3rd 1, 23-24 (1st Cir. 2007); Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d 356, 364-65 (2nd Cir. 2006).

[53] Mr. I., 480 F.3rd at 23-24.

[54] Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist.,489 F.3d 105, 115 (2d Cir. 2007) (emphasis in the original) (citing Frank G., 459 F.3d at 365 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see Mr. I., 480 F.3d at 24.

[55] See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(C)(iii).

[56] As noted above, this IEP increased reading and ESY services and added as needed access to mental health staff.

[57] See Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 403; see also C.G, 513 F.3d at 285 (“The goal, then, is to find the least restrictive educational environment that will accommodate the child’s legitimate needs”).

[58] See T.C. ex rel. I.M. v. William Floyd Union Free Sch. Dist., 774 F. Supp. 3d 583, 614-15 (E.D. N.Y. 2025) (“In general, a [school district] is not required to specify methodology on an IEP, and the precise teaching methodology to be used by a student’s teacher is usually a matter to be left to the teacher’s discretion – absent evidence that a specific methodology is necessary”).

[59] See Roland M., 910 F.2d at 992.

[60] See 20 U.S.C. § 1401 (9), (26), (29); 603 CMR 28.05(4)(b); CMR 28.05(4)(b); Rowley, 458 U.S. at 201; Lessard 518 F. 3d at 23; C.D., 924 F.3d at 624-25. See also T.C., 774 F. Supp. 3d at 615-16 (“an IEP need only be reasonably calculated to provide likely progress, and after reviewing the record, this court concludes that the [state review officer . . . ] had ample evidence to find that the IEP met this standard” (internal punctuation and citation omitted)); M.B. v Fairfax County Sch. Bd., 660 F. Supp. 3d 508, 523 (E.D. VA 2023) (“the evidence established that M.B. made appropriate progress as demonstrated by his IEP progress reports and report cards”).

[61] The accuracy of Ms. Adams’ reporting is unclear, as I credit Ms. Torniero’s testimony that her class does not use Chromebooks; that her students were not watching videos or playing games; and that students were not spending extended periods of time on their own without teacher check-ins.

[62] See M.B., 660 F. Supp. 3d at 523 (“As long as the IEP is ‘reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits,’ the hearing officer ‘cannot reject it because the officer believes that a different methodology would be better for the child’” (quoting Cty. Sch. Bd. of Henrico Cty, Va. v. Z.P. ex rel. R.P., 399 F.3d 298, 308 (4th Cir. 2005)); cf. Lessard, 518 F. 3d at 28 (“The Supreme Court has pointed out with conspicuous clarity that the IDEA confers primary responsibility upon state and local educational agencies to choose among competing pedagogical methodologies and to select the method most suitable to particular child’s needs” (citing Rowley, 468 U.S. at 207)). 

[63] Based on this conclusion, Belmont is also not required to reimburse Parents for tutoring or any other services they provided for Evan during the relevant period.