1. Home
  2. Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) Decisions
  3. In Re: Student v. Winthrop Public Schools BSEA# 26-04122
Searching...

Advanced Search +

In Re: Student v. Winthrop Public Schools BSEA# 26-04122

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS

BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS

In Re: Student v. Winthrop Public Schools

BSEA# 26-04122

DECISION

This decision is issued pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or IDEA (20 USC Sec. 1400 et seq.); Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 USC Sec. 794); the Massachusetts special education statute or “Chapter 766” (MGL c. 71B), the Massachusetts Administrative Procedures Act (MGL c. 30A) and the regulations promulgated under these statutes. 

The Student in the instant case is an eight-year-old child with language-based learning disabilities who currently attends his local elementary school in Winthrop, MA in a full-inclusion placement with pull-out services in reading, speech/language therapy, and occupational therapy (OT)  On October 8, 2025, Parents filed a hearing request with the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) in which they alleged that the Winthrop Public Schools (Winthrop or District) had failed and was failing to provide Student with a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) by not providing him with daily, structured, rules-based reading instruction with an appropriately qualified and credentialed teacher. Parents seek an order from the BSEA directing Winthrop to provide Student with such instruction.  Parents also seek compensatory services corresponding to the period during which Student allegedly did not receive a FAPE.

Upon receipt of Parents’ hearing request, the BSEA scheduled an initial hearing date of November 12, 2025.  At the request of the Winthrop Public Schools, the hearing was postponed to December 10, 11, and 12, 2025.  For logistical and scheduling reasons, an assented-to written request by the District to cancel the December 11, 2025, hearing date was allowed, and the hearing took place on December 10 and 12, 2025.  By agreement of the parties and Hearing Officer, the hearing was conducted remotely, via Zoom. 

Parents proceeded pro se and Winthrop was represented by counsel.  Both parties had an opportunity to submit exhibits and to examine and cross-examine witnesses. Both parties provided oral closing arguments at the conclusion of testimony on December 12, 2025, and the record closed on that day

The record in this case consists of Parents’ Exhibits P-1 through P-19, School’s Exhibits S-1 through S-10, as well as stenographically-recorded witness testimony and oral argument.

Those present for all or part of the proceeding were:

Student’s Mother

Student’s Father

Cathy Mason            Private Evaluator

Susan Douyotas      IEP Team Chair, Winthrop Public Schools

Susan Gibbons        Special Education Director, Winthrop Public Schools

Lisa Howard             Superintendent, Winthrop Public Schools

Michele Holmes      Grade 2 Classroom Teacher, Winthrop Public Schools

Katelyn Madden      Speech/Language Therapist, Winthrop Public Schools

Danielle Vecchio      Special Education Teacher, Winthrop Public Schools

Nick Wilder               Specialized Reading Instructor, Winthrop Public Schools

Briana O’Neill           Private Speech/Language Therapist

Thomas Delmar       Attorney for Winthrop Public Schools

Ellen Muir                  Court Reporter

Roberta Ebhert         Court Reporter

ISSUES  PRESENTED

 The issues for hearing were the following:

  1.  For the 2025-2026 school year, did Winthrop fail to provide FAPE by not providing daily (5x per week) structured, rules-based reading instruction using programs such as Wilson Reading System or Orton-Gillingham approach delivered by a certified practitioner in a separate, distraction-free environment? (Grid C)
  1. For the 2025-2026 school year, did Winthrop fail to provide FAPE by not providing speech-language therapy (3×30 minutes per week) in the C grid?
  1. If the answer to either of the first two is yes, what is the appropriate remedy?

 POSITION OF PARENTS

Student has specific learning disabilities in reading and written expression, a language disorder, speech sound disorder, and ADHD.  Boston Children’s Hospital recommended daily, structured literacy instruction and three sessions per week of speech/language therapy in light of his needs. During the 2025-2026 school year, Winthrop did not implement Student’s IEP with appropriately qualified personnel, or at the required intensity for him to make effective progress. Although the District described Student’s instruction as Orton-Gillingham, the instructor provided did not hold the requisite qualifications and did not deliver the services according to Orton-Gillingham or other structured literacy protocols. Additionally, Student was inappropriately grouped with a peer with different learning needs, so that the reading instruction could not be appropriately individualized. As a result, Student has not made effective progress in reading or language, and this lack of progress is reflected in curriculum-based assessments and classwork. Further, Winthrop provided only two weekly sessions of speech/language therapy, rather than the three weekly sessions that Student Boston Children’s Hospital recommended and that Student needs to make progress in oral language and literacy, and some sessions were missed without makeup sessions. This insufficient speech/language therapy impacted his lack of progress in literacy development. Student is entitled to appropriate services and compensatory services.   

POSITION OF SCHOOL

Student is a bright and capable child who is reading at or above grade level. He has very good language skills and neither his expressive nor receptive language inhibit his educational performance. In October 2025, in response to Parents’ request, Winthrop retained a speech/language pathologist with an Orton-Gillingham certificate from Carroll School to provide Student’s pull-out reading and writing services. Since receiving instruction from this provider, Student has made excellent progress on testing and in his classroom performance.

Student also is making excellent progress with the currently provided two sessions per week in speech/language therapy. The literacy skills that Boston Children’s Hospital recommended targeting in three weekly sessions of speech/language therapy are being addressed in the specialized literacy instruction, making the third therapy session unnecessary.   

SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

  1. Student is an eight-year-old child with disabilities who is a resident of Winthrop.  Student’s eligibility for special education and related services from the Winthrop Public Schools pursuant to the IDEA and MGL c. 71B is not in dispute.  Student is described as an engaging, friendly and kind child with a “great personality,” who gets along well with peers and adults, and is a pleasure to teach.  Student has average cognitive ability and enjoys many activities, including Legos and sports. (Mother, Vecchio, Madden, Wilder)
  1. In addition to his many strengths, Student has a specific learning disorder with impairments in reading (primarily fluency and comprehension), and written expression.  He also carries diagnoses of expressive and receptive language and speech sound disorders as well as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, combined type.  This combination of disabilities affects Student’s ability to make progress in reading, written expression, and speech/language.  (P-3, Mother, Mason) Additionally, Student was born with a form of spinal bifida that was not correctly diagnosed until he was four years old. Although the condition was surgically corrected at that time, Student requires frequent medical monitoring. (Mother)
  2. Both of Student’s Parents are educators, employed by a Massachusetts public school district (not Winthrop). Mother holds a Master’s degree and two CAGS degrees, and currently is a doctoral student in leadership with a focus of study in literacy. She holds DESE licenses in Moderate Disabilities (Elementary), Principal, Director, and Superintendent, as well and additional licenses in Orton-Gillingham (from the Institute of Multisensory Education or IME) and Wilson Reading. (P-18, Mother)
  3. Mother has worked for her current public school district employer for approximately 18 years, 14 years as a special education teacher, and the past four years as an instructional coach.  In that capacity, Mother observes, supervises, and mentors teachers in the area of structured literacy instruction, including Wilson and Orton-Gillingham.  In addition to her regular employment, for the past five years, Mother has worked part-time as a practicum supervisor for Orton-Gillingham for the IMSE, in which capacity she coaches and supervises teachers to improve the quality of their instruction and helps prepare them for the national examination called the KPEERI. (Mother)
  4. Parents first became concerned about Student’s learning and development when he was an infant and toddler. He received physical and occupational therapy as well as speech language services through Early Intervention (EI). Parents referred Student to Winthrop for a special education evaluation at the age of two-and-one-half years. The District found him eligible under the category of “developmental delay,” and provided him with OT and speech/language services in an integrated preschool, and, subsequently, in Kindergarten. (Mother)
  5. In December 2023, when Student was six years old and enrolled in Kindergarten, Winthrop conducted a three-year re-evaluation consisting of assessments in academics, speech/language, and occupational therapy. (S-1)
  6. Student’s Reading skills as measured by the WIAT were slightly below average, with average skills in Phonemic Proficiency, Word Reading, and Rapid Naming, and below average skills in Phonological Awareness, Reading Comprehension, Phonological Processing, Blending Words, and Nonword Repetition. (S-1)
  7. The physical therapy assessment revealed that Student had independent mobility skills as well as improved strength and coordination, but continued to have some challenges with core strength and complex coordination. The OT evaluation showed that Student was able to print letters and use scissors, but needed to improve fine motor skills for writing. (S-1)
  8. After a Team meeting on December 18, 2023, the Team determined that Student continued to be eligible for special education under the category “developmental delay” On January 9, 2024, Winthrop issued an IEP covering December 2023 to December 2024. (S-1)
  9. This IEP noted that Student had “low average” expressive and receptive language skills, with strengths in understanding semantic relationships, comprehending language concepts, following multi-step instructions, recall of spoken language, sentence formation, articulation, speech production and pragmatic skills. He displayed weaknesses in listening comprehension, recalling information, and specific language concepts such as prepositional phrases. This IEP contained goals in Reading, Motor Skills, Speech/Language, and OT (writing). The service delivery grid provided 5X30 minutes per week of reading services in Grid C, as well as 1X30 minutes per week, each, of PT, OT, and speech/language, also in Grid C. (S-1) The IEP did not provide for Extended School Year (ESY) services. (S-1)
  10. Parents rejected this IEP because the 1X30 minutes per week of PT, OT, and Speech/Language constituted a reduction from previous levels of 2X30 minutes per week, and asserted “stay put” as to the frequency of these services. (S-1)
  11. On December 16, 2024, (mid-first grade) the Team convened for Student’s annual IEP review, and on January 22, 2025, issued an IEP covering December 16, 2024 to December 15, 2025. This IEP reported that Student had adjusted well to first grade, got along with everyone, “did great” on recent math assessments, was progressing on reading assessments, and needed support with writing. The IEP continued goals in Reading, Motor Skills, Speech/Language, OT, and Written Language.  The service delivery grid moved Reading and Written Expression from Grid C to Grid B and reduced Speech/Language therapy from 2×30 per week to 1×30 per week.  Parents rejected the change in reading services to Grid B as well as the reduction in Speech/Language services. (S-2) 
  12. On February 19, 2025, Student underwent speech/language, OT, and PT evaluations at Boston Children’s Hospital (BCH).[1]  The speech/language evaluation consisted of the Goldman Fristoe Test of Articulation-Third Edition (GFTA-3), and subtests of the Test of Integrated Language and Literacy Skills (TILLS) that assessed spoken language. (P-2)
  13. The GFTA-3 indicated that Student had “average” speech sound skills, but upon clinical observation, Student demonstrated some “immature” and/or “atypical” articulation.  On the TILLS , Student achieved “average” scores on tests of Phonemic Awareness, Nonword Spelling, and Listening Comprehension and “below average” scores on Story Retell, Nonword Repetition, Following Directions Delayed Story Retell, and Nonword Reading.  The evaluator hypothesized that the relative strengths in tasks related to phonetics was attributable to Father’s work with Student using Orton-Gillingham. The evaluator concluded that Student had some receptive language weaknesses affecting his ability to remember complex instructions and answer some inferential questions. Expressively, Student struggled with organizing and formulating spoken language when demands increased, as well as with understanding the semantic relationships between words. (P-2)
  14. The evaluators recommended various classroom accommodations, such as extra time to respond to questions, visual supports, breaks, small group instruction, and shortened instructions, as well as continued pull-out, school-based speech/language therapy, for a minimum of 60 minutes per week in a quiet setting with a group of no more than three total students. The therapy should focus on receptive and expressive language and speech production.  The report further concluded that Student “continue[d] to require reading instruction that builds in phonological processing skills by employing direct phonemic based instruction, automatization of skills learned, and circling back on instruction.” (P-2)
  15. On April 8, 2025, the Team convened to review the BCH evaluations, and on April 18, 2025, issued an amendment to the 12/17/24 – 12/16/25 IEP.  Other than noting that the outside evaluations were reviewed, and that the speech/language evaluation included a diagnosis of a language-literacy disorder, it is unclear what changes, if any, were made to Student’s IEP. The record does not indicate Parents’ response to this amendment. (S-3)
  16. On May 16, 2025, the Team convened to review psychological, OT, and PT evaluations conducted by the District in April 2025.[2] The psychological evaluation consisted of a cognitive assessment using the WPPSY-IV[3], as well as rating scales completed by Parents and a teacher to address social/emotional functioning.  (P-3, S-4). On June 2, 2025, the District issued an IEP amendment that reported that the evaluation Student had performed, overall, in the “average” range on the WPPSI-IV, earning “low average” scores on Visual-Spatial and Working Memory, and “average” scores on all other subtests.  The rating scales indicated that Student displayed significant levels of inattention and hyperactivity at home, but not in school.
  17. The amended IEP added a goal in “Attention,” with objectives addressing Student’s ability to remain engaged in independent work, maintain focus in group settings, and check his work before submission.  The service delivery grid provided the same level of service as the prior IEP, namely, 5×30 minutes per week, each, of reading and written expression in Grid C, as well as 1×30 minutes per week, each, of speech/language therapy and OT, also in Grid C.  Parents accepted the placement and accepted all additional services in the IEP but “rejected all reductions in service,” and asserted stay put for PT and ESY.[4] (S-4)
  18. On June 3, 2025, when Student was aged seven years, six months, he underwent a Comprehensive Learning Disabilities Evaluation in the Department of Neurology at BCH, consisting of a neurologic examination and neuropsychological, oral and written language, and mathematics evaluations.  According to the report entitled “Coordination of Findings,” an interdisciplinary team had reviewed Student’s performance across domains, including a review of prior testing and educational history. (P-3)
  19. The neurologic examination noted Student’s medical history, and concluded that his history and presentation suggested a diagnosis of ADHD-combined type.  The examiner noted that Student should be monitored for possible motor planning deficits, and recommended ongoing school-based OT and PT services. (P-4)
  20. The neuropsychological evaluation consisted of subtests from the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI-II), Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Chidren, 5th Edition (WISC-V), the Automated Series (Verbal), the Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration, the Children’s Memory Scale (CMS), and the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF-2). Student scored in the “average” range on all standardized testing with the exception of tests of story recall in the CMS. Some elevated scores were noted on the BRIEF. (P-5)
  21. The evaluator concluded that Student displayed behavioral and attentional dysregulation that compromise his learning effectiveness, as well as “emerging and already interfering” problems with generating conceptual frameworks to support integrative learning that are commonly seen in children with motor dyspraxia and longstanding oral language and fine motor delays.” The neuropsychologist further commented that Student’s challenges are subtle now but will become more pronounced as academic demands increase.  The evaluator recommended simplified oral language instruction, movement breaks, opportunities to talk while working, correcting impulsive errors without penalty, and use of visual supports. (P-5)
  22. The Oral and Written Language Evaluation concluded that Student met diagnostic criteria for Specific Learning Disorder with Impairments in Reading (fluency and comprehension) and Written Expression (clarity and organization), Language Disorder, and Speech Sound Disorder. The report stated that Student’s “pronounced language difficulties may begin to affect literacy progress negatively, given notable weaknesses in timed reading, oral reading fluency tasks, and writing at the word, sentence and discourse levels.” The report further states that “the scope of his needs extends beyond decoding and spelling to include broader targets requiring direct, specialized instruction in comprehension, expressive language, and oral reading fluency.” Regarding writing, the report concluded that Student needed “systematic and evidence-based instruction in writing fluency, organization, and expansion as specialized writing services outside of the general education setting,” with such instruction provided at least 3×30 minutes per week. (P-6)
  23. Additionally, the report recommended speech/language intervention 3×30 minutes per week, intensive and specialized literacy intervention, targeted general education instruction in written expression and reading comprehension, an OT evaluation, a monthly consultation between the speech/language therapist and teachers and reading instruction that emphasizes prosody and expression to support comprehension and sentence-level fluency. The report further recommended various strategies and accommodations. (P-6)
  24. The Mathematics evaluation revealed that Student possessed grade-level math skills, but required accommodations to address his challenges with attention, language, and writing so that he could demonstrate his knowledge (P-7)
  25. The BCH multidisciplinary team issued a Coordination of Findings which summarized the above-referenced assessments and reiterated recommendations for specialized, C-Grid instruction 3×30 minutes/week, each, in reading and writing; 3×30 minutes per week of speech/language therapy “to target underlying language deficits that will continue to complicate his access to grade-level content,” and a goal addressing self-regulation skills. The report stated that “[w]hile his learning disorder is an important feature of his profile, his challenges with self-regulation and language are equally salient…” (P-3) On September 5, 2025, at the beginning of Student’s second grade year, the Team reviewed the BCH evaluation and, on September 12, 2025, issued another amendment to the 12/16/2024-12/15/2025 IEP.  (S-5)
  26. The IEP issued on September 12, 2025, reflected a determination that Student had a specific learning disability affecting basic reading skills, reading fluency skills, written expression, and reading comprehension, and contained goals in Decoding/Fluency, Attention, Speech/Language, OT, Encoding, Reading Comprehension, and Written Language. The service delivery grid provided for 1×15 minutes per month of consultation between the speech/language therapist and classroom teacher (Grid A) as well as the following services in Grid C: Reading, 5×45 minutes per week, Speech/Language, 2×30 minutes per week, OT, 2×30 minutes per week, and Writing, 5×15 minutes per week. Placement was designated as full inclusion. (S-5)
  27. Under “Modifications,” the IEP stated that Student would receive “small group direct reading and writing instruction to include specialized reading instruction that is explicit and multisensory, explicit, systematic, cumulative, and multi-modal” Under “Additional Information,” the IEP briefly summarized the BCH evaluation results, and stated that Student should have access to general education interventions from the school adjustment counselor, such as check-ins, especially before or after a medical appointment. (S-5)
  28. N-1 form accompanying this IEP stated that the District had rejected Parents’ requests for counseling and a math goal, and was deferring action on their request to add a physical disability to Student’s profile pending further medical information. (S-5)
  29. On September 29, 2025, Parents accepted “rules-based reading,” but rejected the “failure to provide [Student] with instruction by an Orton-Gillingham certified teacher who has completed a full one-year practicum, passed the KPERLI examination, and holds a current MA DESE license to teach special education. Additionally, we are staying put with [Student’s] PT. Lastly, we are staying put on all services currently in place including ESY and other services. We also withdraw our approval to remove math…” Additionally, Parents commented: “[Student] needs a highly qualified teacher to deliver rules-based reading as he has not been making effective progress. He also needs Tier 3 (specialized instruction) in math.”  (S-5)
  30. In or about September 2025, in an effort to address Parents’ concerns regarding rules-based reading instruction, Winthrop retained Nick Wilder (a contracted employee of the District) to provide such instruction to Student. Mr. Wilder’s past experience includes working as a tutor and reading teacher at the Landmark School, as an English teacher and tutor at Lawrence Academy in Groton, and a tutor/reading specialist and paraprofessional at the Carroll School. Mr. Wilder holds a provisional DESE license as a speech/language pathologist. He also holds documentation from the Carroll School attesting that he completed 130 hours of supervised practice in delivering Orton-Gillingham instruction. (Wilder, S-8)
  31. Mr. Wilder testified that in addition to the 130 hours of practice referenced above, and coursework, he completed Carroll School’s 90-hour, associate’s level Orton-Gillingham course.  He could apply for certification from the Academy of Orton-Gillingham Practitioners upon payment of a fee and submission of his portfolio from Carroll. While he does not hold certifications from the Orton-Gillingham Academy or the IMSE, and is not certified in Wilson Reading, Mr. Wilder believes that his extensive training through the Carroll School, as well as his graduate school training in speech/language therapy make him well-qualified to deliver Orton-Gillingham instruction. (Wilder)  
  32. Since approximately October 2025, Mr. Wilder has provided Grid C reading services to Student 5×45 minutes per week. Student is paired with one other child, and  Mr. Wilder testified that he uses the same Orton-Gillingham lessons to instruct both students. The first 20 or 25 minutes of each session is spent working on decoding, and the second portion is spent on encoding, or writing. The session begins with work on rhyming, followed by work with Elkonin boxes, which are manipulatives comprising small squares of colored paper that students use to segment words. Following the Elkonin box exercise, which lasts about one minute, the students use a phonogram deck to follow a scripted routine for word building. This activity is followed by reading controlled text and sight words. After completing their decoding work, the students move on to encoding, with oral spelling exercises and dictation. (Wilder)
  33. According to Mr. Wilder, the usual duration of an Orton-Gillingham lesson is one hour; as such, he finds that the 45 minutes allotted for Student’s sessions to be a little too short, and that he cannot give full attention to every element of a standard Orton-Gillingham lesson, although he includes most or all elements within the time constraints imposed. (Wilder)
  34. Student and the peer with whom he is grouped for Orton-Gillingham sessions do not have identical reading profiles. Student has more advanced phonetic skills than the peer; on the other hand, the peer is less distractable. Mr. Wilder stated that he tends to “cater the lesson with the abilities of the lower-level student a little bit more…And in spite of that, [Student] is still making progress.”  (Wilder)
  35. Mr. Wilder testified that Student has been making progress in his IEP decoding and fluency goals; specifically, Student has met or nearly met all decoding benchmarks (including reading word lists, reading sight words, blending sounds) and has been making progress in encoding benchmarks, although he needs more time with letter formation. According to Mr. Wilder, Student performs at an average or above-average level in phonics. He works on fluency in the context of daily oral reading.  (Wilder, S-8).
  36. Mr. Wilder further testified that he believes Student’s reading level meets or exceeds that of a typical second grader and that he does not require a structured literacy program to make progress in reading. (Wilder)
  37. On November 6, 2025, Parents observed Student’s reading lesson with Mr. Wilder.  They reported that the lesson, which focused on phonics, decoding, and text-level reading, was not conducted with fidelity. Specifically, they noted that the teacher did not follow the prescribed sequence or structure of the lesson, that steps in the lesson were omitted, the teacher did not provide corrective feedback, that the teacher incorrectly used unlined paper for student writing rather than preformatted lined paper designed for Orton-Gillingham instruction, that various charts and visuals were not used consistently, students were passive and not engaged, instruction was not effective, and there were missed instructional opportunities.  (P-18, Mother)
  38. On December 2, 2025, Student underwent a private educational assessment conducted by an educational specialist, Cathy Mason, M.Ed. On December 5, 2025, Ms. Mason observed Student in his specialized reading/writing lesson with Mr. Wilder. (P-17)
  39. Ms. Mason holds a Master’s degree in Education, and has completed postgraduate work at various institutions. She evaluated and observed children with disabilities in the educational context, and made recommendations for their programming, since the 1980s. Between the 1990’s and approximately 2023, Ms. Mason was on the staff of the Center for Children with Special Needs (CCSN) at Tufts Medical Center, where she conducted clinical evaluations of students and observations of educational settings. Ms. Mason currently has a private practice doing the same work she did at CCSN.  She has evaluated many students with specific learning disabilities, and has undergone some training in Orton-Gillingham.  (Mason)
  40. Parents retained Ms. Mason because they were concerned about the type and quality of Student’s specialized reading instruction, and sought an observation of his programming.  In preparation for the observation, Ms. Mason reviewed prior evaluations, including the BCH evaluation of June 2025, and conducted a brief assessment of Student’s language and literacy skills. (Mason, P-17)
  41. Ms. Mason’s evaluation consisted of the Letter-Word Recognition and Nonsense Word Decoding subtests of the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, 3rd Edition (KTEA-3), Gray Oral Reading Test, 5th Edition (GORT-5), the Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest of the Test of Word Reading Efficiency, 2nd Edition (TOWRE-2), and an informal writing sample. (Mason, P-17)
  42. Student achieved “average” scores on both subtests of the KTEA, as well as on the TOWRE-2 subtest. On the TOWRE-2, Student “showed consistent performance and much greater mastery of phonetic rules and patterns than on BCH evaluations.”  On Student’s scores on the rate, accuracy, fluency, and comprehension domains of the GORT-5 also were “average,” although he tended to read in a monotone, made some impulsive errors, and had “some vulnerabilities related to prosody” which impacted fluency. Student was not “taken to a ceiling” on the GORT because “he was reading with a solid level of fluency and comprehension well into the mid-late second grade level. (Mason, P-17)
  43. For the writing assessment, Student performed better than he had in the BCH evaluation, but his writing was still at a first-grade level, with errors in capitalization, punctuation, and transition words. Ms. Mason’s evaluation report recommended implementing the “specific literacy and self-regulation recommendations made in the BCH evaluation.” (P-17)
  44. Ms. Mason observed Student in Mr. Wilder’s class on December 5, 2025, and concluded that the specialized reading instruction was not being delivered with fidelity and was not appropriate for Student’s current learning needs and literacy level. Specifically, the lesson contained some, but not all features of an Orton-Gillingham lesson. According to Ms. Mason, instruction was not systematic, explicit, or multisensory, lacked consistent corrective feedback, and was delivered too quickly, and was hard to follow. She did not observe a comprehension component or systematic data collection. (Mason, P-17)
  45. Additionally, Student’s instruction was not precisely individualized as required by Orton-Gillingham because he was grouped with a peer whose reading skills were lower than Student’s. As a result, some portions of the lesson were too easy for Student. (P-17)
  46. When asked whether Student’s improvement in phonemic decoding (as measured by the TOWRE-2) since the BCH evaluation was attributable to Mr. Wilder’s instruction, Ms. Mason answered that this was unlikely because Student had only been receiving such instruction for two months. She testified that it was highly unlikely that two months of instruction that was not being delivered with fidelity would give rise to the improvement seen between June and December 2025, and even if it had been delivered with fidelity, the time period at issue was “not long enough for that kind of change.” (Mason)
  47. Ms. Mason hypothesized that the Student’s TOWRE-2 scores in the BCH evaluation might have been lowered by inattention, and that Student had been receiving decoding instruction previously (from Father) prior to his placement in Mr. Wilder’s class. (Mason)
  48. Ms. Mason elaborated that Student is not dyslexic, that, as such, he is “wired” to absorb reading skills more easily than a child with dyslexia, stating that “he’s in a lot of different reading environments, and he could easily have picked up the skills that he’s picked up in any environment in reading. If he were dyslexic, he would really rely on the OG lesson much more. But he’s—you know, he’s a kid who’s reading, and he’s pretty confident in that” (Mason)
  49. Ms. Mason testified that in order to make effective progress, Student “does not require a full-blown OG lesson. Orton-Gillingham does cover comprehension, but…the focus needs to be…on his particular areas of vulnerabilities…He probably doesn’t need most of the components of it…But he does need work on…fluency and comprehension,” as identified by the BCH report. (Mason)
  50. Ms. Mason further testified that Student is at risk in the area of comprehension because of oral language difficulties coupled with challenges in regulating his attention, and that he should receive specialized reading instruction 3×30 minutes per week that is focused on this area of need, adjusted in light of Student’s recent growth, per the BCH report.  (Mason)
  51. Mr. Wilder testified that he disagreed with Ms. Mason’s and Mother’s assessment of his instruction, stating that he used multi-sensory (auditory, visual, and tactile) approaches,  provided structured and systematic corrective feedback, and appropriate pacing. He stated that he had a good rapport with Student, and that Student was making progress. (Wilder)
  52. Susan Douyotas, Student’s IEP Team chair, has observed Student in Mr. Wilder’s class on several occasions. Most recently, she accompanied Ms. Mason when she observed Student on December 5, 2025. Ms. Douyotas holds a Master’s degree in special education and a DESE license in special education, grades 5 through 12.  She also is licensed as a principal and special education administrator. Prior to becoming a Team chair three years ago, Ms. Douyotas served as a special education teacher for ten years, and taught reading in various special education settings. Ms. Douyotas has known Student since Kindergarten. She has reviewed his records and attended all of his IEP meetings.  (Douyotas)
  53. Ms. Douyotas observed Mr. Wilder working with Student and the second student. She testified that Mr. Wilder moved through a structured lesson plan, and employed a variety of phonics-related activities, including rhyming, segmenting, phonogram cards, finding and identifying words containing O-U and E-D, and spelling and tapping out words. The students also did a dictation exercise, and used an editing checklist, and read a text. Student appeared to be engaged and seemed to have a good rapport with Mr. Wilder, who made an effort to make the lesson interesting. In Ms. Douyotas’ opinion, Mr. Wilder delivered effective instruction that conformed with Student’s IEP, in that the teacher used multi-sensory approaches, had a structured and systematic lesson plan, used previously-learned information to support introduction of new concepts, and employed corrective feedback.  (Douyotas)
  54. Ms. Douyotas testified that Mr. Wilder was able to individualize Student’s instruction despite the fact that Student and the peer were at slightly different skill levels. She stated that the Student was a stronger reader than the peer, but that the peer was more focused and less distractible; as such, “they kind of balance each other out in terms of the instruction being effective.” (Douyotas)
  55. Michele Holmes, who  was Student’s Grade 2, general education classroom teacher during the 2025-2026 school year, testified about Student’s performance and progress. Ms. Holmes testified that Student attends her classroom five days per week, including for “bits of reading” and math, and is inquisitive, hard-working, respectful and helpful.  Student participates in class and follows directions. (Holmes)
  56. Ms. Holmes stated that she works on reading with Student in a small group and finds that Student’s decoding is “fairly strong,” and on grade level. His comprehension and fluency skills are weaker, and she works on those skills in small-group reading sessions. His writing is slightly below grade level, but not unusually so for second grade. He is a strong math student. Ms. Holmes did not find that Student’s reading disabilities affected his ability to participate in other subjects. (Holmes)
  57. Ms. Holmes administered the Star CBM to her second-grade class in September and November 2025. The Star CBM is a commercial, computer-scored, tool for curriculum-based measurement of student progress in various academic skills. Ms. Holmes testified that the Star CBM showed that Student had made progress in reading and math.  For example, on a Star literacy test, Student moved from the 9th to the 25th percentile between September and November of 2025. (Holmes, S-7, S-13, S-14)
  58. Danielle Vecchio is Student’s special education writing teacher. She holds a Master’s degree in special education and DESE licenses in elementary education and moderate special needs. She has been teaching in Winthrop for 16 years. (Vecchio)
  59. During the 2025-2026 school year, Ms. Vecchio has worked with Student on writing 5×30 minutes per week in a small group of five students, including Student.  Ms. Vecchio testified that she has been working with Student on capitalization, punctuation, using complete sentences, and spelling.  She does not work on comprehension. Ms. Vecchio testified that Student makes very few spelling errors in his written work, writes as many sentences as she asks him to write, and appears to be making progress in that he is able to accomplish tasks of increasing complexity with the help of scaffolding and tools such as graphic organizers. She stated that Student has grade-level letter formation skills, but needs reminders to slow down and apply them. Ms. Vecchio stated that she is not aware of Student’s progress in reading because she has not discussed it with his reading teacher. (Vecchio)
  60. Katelyn Madden has been Student’s speech-language therapist for the 2025-2026 school year. She holds a Master’s degree in speech/language pathology, a DESE license as a speech/language pathologist, as well as a Certificate of Clinical Competency (CCC) from the American Speech, Language and Hearing Association (ASHA). Ms. Madden has worked as a speech/language therapist for 12 years. (Madden)
  61. Ms. Madden testified that she works with Student 2×30 minutes weekly outside of the classroom, and consults with the classroom and special education teachers for 15 minutes per month. Ms. Madden stated that Student’s main expressive language weaknesses are in word retrieval, formulating thoughts in a clear and concise manner, and describing relationships between vocabulary words. Receptively, Student struggles with comprehension, especially with embedded concepts and comprehending verbal information. During the 2025-2026 school year, she has been working with Student on contrasting vocabulary, narrative recall, and following multistep directions with embedded concepts. Based on prior evaluations, Ms. Madden understands that Student has phonological awareness difficulties, but she does not target phonological skills or literacy because Student receives services in these areas in another setting. Ms. Madden stated that Student’s weaknesses in organizing thoughts have an impact on his writing. (Madden)
  62. Ms. Madden testified that based on observation and data, Student has been making effective progress towards his IEP goals and benchmarks. She stated that she believes two sessions per week of speech/language therapy is sufficient, explaining that the BCH recommendation for three sessions per week was based on including work on phonological skills within the speech sessions, but that Student’s work on these skills takes place in his specialized reading classroom instead of in speech/language therapy. (Madden) 
  63. Testimony regarding speech/language therapy also was provided by Briana O’Neill, who has provided Student with private speech/language services since he was two or three years old. Ms. O’Neill has been a licensed speech/language pathologist for 13 years. She holds a Master’s degree in communication disorders and a CAGS in special education administration, as well as DESE licenses in speech/language pathology and special education administration. She has been employed by two public school districts. Currently, Ms. O’Neill has a private practice and serves as an adjunct professor in a community college system. (O’Neill)
  64. Ms. O’Neill testified that she currently works with Student twice per week. Sthe stated that Student has a speech sound disorder as well as an expressive and receptive language disorder.  His speech sound disorder affects articulation, his expressive language disorder impact the organization of his language and his ability to retell information, and his receptive language affects his ability to understand orally presented information and follow multi-step directions.  Ms. O’Neill testified that Student’s disorganized comprehension of information and disorganized expressive language affect his reading fluency and comprehension, as well as his writing. Student’s challenges are exacerbated by his working memory deficits. (O’Neill)
  65. Ms. O’Neill currently works with Student on motor sequencing of speech sounds, comprehension of auditory information, following directions, sequencing events, retelling stories, and concise, coherent expressive language. Additionally, she works with him on self-regulation and attention.  (O’Neill)
  66. Ms. O’Neill testified that due to the complexity of his language needs, Student requires 3×30 minutes per week of school-based speech/language therapy, to address speech sound production, comprehension, and expressive language, that his current IEP goals in speech/language are unclear such that it is difficult to measure his progress, and that he is not currently on track to make effective progress.  (O’Neill)
  67. Quarterly progress reports issued by Winthrop indicated that Student had met most IEP objectives in Reading, Writing and Speech/Language in March and in May 2025. (S-9)

DISCUSSION

Legal Framework

FAPE Standard

There is no dispute that Student is a school-aged child with a disability who at all relevant times was eligible for special education and related services pursuant to the IDEA, 20 USC Section 1400, et seq., and the Massachusetts special education statute, M.G.L. c. 71B (“Chapter 766”).  Student is entitled, therefore, to a free appropriate public education (FAPE), which “comprises ‘special education and related services’–both ‘instruction’ tailored to meet a child’s ‘unique needs’ and sufficient ‘supportive services’ to permit the child to benefit from that instruction.”  C.D. v. Natick Public School District, et al., No. 18-1794, at 4 (1st Cir. 2019), quoting Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools, 137 S. Ct. 743, 748-749 (2017); and 20 USC§1401 (9), (26), (29).[5] 

Federal regulations define “specially designed instruction”  as “adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible child under this part, the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction— (i) To address the unique needs of the child that result from the child’s disability; and (ii) To ensure access of the child to the general curriculum ….” 34 CFR 300.39(a)(3). Massachusetts regulations define “special education” as “specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of the eligible student or related services necessary to access the general curriculum and shall include the programs and services set forth in state and federal special education law.” 603 CMR 28.02(20).

Student’s IEP, which is “the primary vehicle for delivery of FAPE, C.D. v. Natick, 18-1794 at 4, quoting D. B. v. Esposito, 675 F. 3d 26, 34 (1st Cir. 2012), must be “reasonably calculated to enable [him] to make progress appropriate in light of [his] circumstances.”  C.D. v. Natick, 18-1794 at 4, quoting Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988, 1001 (2017).

While Student is not entitled to an educational program that maximizes his potential, he is entitled to one which is capable of providing not merely trivial benefit, but, rather,  “meaningful” educational benefit.  C.D. v. Natick, 18-1794 at 12-13; D.B. v. Esposito,  675 F.3d at 34-35; Johnson v. Boston Public Schools, 906 F.3d 182 (1st Cir. 2018).  See also, Bd.of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 US 176, 201 (1982); Town of Burlington v. Dept. of Education (“Burlington II”), 736 F.2d 773, 789 (1st Cir. 1984).  Whether educational benefit is “meaningful” must be determined in the context of a student’s potential to learn.  Endrew F. 137 S. Ct. at 1000, Rowley, 458 US at 202; Lessard v. Wilton Lyndeborough Cooperative School District, 518 F3d 18, 29 (1st Cir. 2008); D.B. v. Esposito, 675 F.3d at 34-35.  Within the context of each child’s unique profile, a disabled child’s goals should be “appropriately ambitious in light of [the child’s] circumstances,” Endrew F. 137 S. Ct. at 1001; C.D. v. Natick, 18- 1794 at 14.

FAPE entails both a substantive component, as described above, and procedural protections for students with disabilities and their parents.  These protections are intended to support the parent-school collaboration envisioned by federal and state special education statutes by ensuring that parents have full and meaningful opportunities to participate in the Team process.[6] 

It is important to note at this juncture, however, that while Parents are full members of the Team, Parents’ disagreement with portions of an IEP does not render the IEP inappropriate.  Lessard v. Wilton Lyndeborough Cooperative School District, 518 F.3d 18 (1st Cir., 2008). See also, Lt. T.B. ex rel. N.B. v. Warwick School Committee, 361 F.3d 80, 83 (1st Cir. 2004). And while Parents are entitled to meaningful participation in the Team process, and to have their contributions considered, the District is ultimately responsible for proposing an IEP that it deems reasonably calculated to provide Student with FAPE, whether or not Parents are in agreement.  In Re: Natick Public Schools, BSEA No. 11-3131 (Crane, 2011), cited in In Re: Acton-Boxboro RSD, BSEA No. 2509385 (Kantor-Nir, 2025), and cases cited therein.

Further, school districts generally have the right to control assignment of teachers and related service providers, as long as these individuals have the requisite credentials for their positions. See: In Re: Ipswich Public Schools, 46 IDELR 296 (Berman, 2006); Duxbury Public Schools, 13 MSER 25 (Figueroa, 2007). Additionally, parents do not have the right to compel a school district to use a particular methodology or program, and courts generally do not disturb schools’ choice of methodology. Lachman v. Illinois State Board of Education , 852 F.2d 290, 296 (7th Cir. 1988); cert. den., 488 US 925 (1988). See also In Re: Boston Public Schools v. Student, BSEA No. 1503083, 1401653 (Figueroa, 2014).  Moreover, the educational services chosen by the school need not be “the only appropriate choice, or the choice of certain selected experts, or the child’s parents’ first choice, or even the best choice,” as long as the IEP is reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit. G.D. v. Westmoreland School District, 930 F.2d 942 (1st Cir., 1991).

Finally,eligible children must be educated in the least restrictive environment (LRE) consistent with an appropriate program; that is, students should be placed in more restrictive environments, such as private day or residential schools, only when the nature or severity of the child’s disability is such that the child cannot receive FAPE in a less restrictive setting.  On the other hand, “the desirability of mainstreaming must be weighed in concert with the Act’s mandate for educational improvement.”  C.D. v. Natick, 18-1794 at 5-6, quoting Roland M. v. Concord School Committee, 910 F.2d 983 (1st Cir. 1990).   Opportunities for mainstreaming will not cure an otherwise inappropriate program. Id.

Burden of Proof

In a due process proceeding to determine whether a school district has offered or provided FAPE to an eligible child, the burden of proof is on the party seeking to challenge the status quo. In the instant case, as the moving party challenging the IEP and services provided by Winthrop, Parents bear this burden. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 US 49 (2005) As such, to prevail, Parents must demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the IEP and services at issue were and are inappropriate.

Analysis

The parties substantially agree that Student is an engaging, kind, and friendly child who has average cognitive abilities, and who is a hardworking and motivated student.  The record shows that along with his strengths, Student has a specific learning disability affecting reading (particularly comprehension and fluency) and written expression, as well as a language/communication disability affecting articulation, expressive, and receptive language, and ADHD, which manifests in some impulsivity and distractibility.  Lastly, the parties agree, and the record demonstrates, that Student needs pull-out specialized instruction in reading and written expression, as well as speech/language therapy, but, except for these services, is appropriately placed in the general education setting. 

The parties’ disputes are narrow: first, whether, Winthrop’s specialized reading program for academic year 2025-2026 provides Student with a FAPE, and, second, whether Winthrop has denied Student a FAPE by providing him with 2×30 minutes per week of speech/language therapy instead of 3×30 minutes per week. I will address each issue in turn.

Issue 1: For the 2025-2026 school year, did Winthrop fail to provide FAPE by not providing daily (5x per week) structured, rules-based reading instruction using programs such as Wilson Reading System or Orton-Gillingham approach delivered by a certified practitioner in a separate, distraction-free environment? (Grid C)

Based on my careful review of the record, I conclude that Parents have not met their burden of persuasion regarding the above issue.  My reasoning follows.

The Student’s IEP covering December 2024 to December 2025, as most recently amended in September 2025, provides for “small group direct reading and writing instruction to include specialized reading instruction that is explicit and multisensory, …systematic, cumulative, and multi-modal.”  There is no dispute that Student received, and continues to receive, daily, structured, rules-based reading instruction in a separate, distraction-free environment. The parties’ dispute concerns the qualifications of the instructor and the quality of service delivery.

In or about September 2025, Winthrop hired Nick Wilder as a contract employee to provide such specialized reading instruction to Student and one other child. Mr. Wilder holds a provisional DESE license in speech/language therapy, has worked as an English teacher and tutor at Landmark and Carroll Schools, and has received over 100 hours of training in Orton-Gillingham via the Carroll School. While he received a certificate of completion from Carroll, he is not certified by the Orton-Gillingham Academy (OGA) or the Institute for Multi-Sensory Instruction (IMSE) and he is not Wilson certified.

Parents argue that as a threshold matter, Mr. Wilder does not possess the requisite credentials to provide rules-based, structured literacy instruction to Student, using an approach such as Orton-Gilliingham. Parents base this argument on their extensive, in-depth knowledge about such instruction.  Specifically, both Parents are certified in Orton-Gillingham. As stated in the Summary of Evidence, above, Mother has a strong academic background, is certified by the OGA and the IMSE, and is employed by a large school district instructing, observing, and coaching teachers who seek to develop their ability to deliver Orton-Gillingham instruction. Additionally, Mother works part-time as a practicum supervisor for the IMSE. Lastly, Mother worked as a special education teacher for 14 years before becoming an instructional coach, four years ago. Mother’s testimony demonstrated that she is highly knowledgeable about structured literacy instruction in general, and Orton-Gillingham in particular, and has an impressive familiarity with the details of how such instruction is “supposed to be” delivered.

Parents further argue that based on their and Cathy Mason’s observation of Mr. Wilder’s class, that he has not been delivering Student’s specialized reading instruction “with fidelity,” that the peer grouping in the class is inappropriate, and that, as a result, Student is not making, and will not make, effective progress. Parents’ argument is not supported by the totality of the record, for several reasons.

First, while acknowledging that Mr. Wilder’s credentials are not as extensive as Parents’, Parents have made no showing that he is not “qualified” to provide services. Mr. Wilder has been trained in Orton-Gillingham, and holds a provisional DESE license as a speech/language pathologist. He testified that in fact, he is eligible to obtain a standard license upon payment of a fee and submission of a portfolio to DESE. Parents have presented no legal or factual basis to conclude that Mr. Wilder must also hold credentials from professional bodies such as the OGA or IMSE in order to be qualified for his position, or able to provide FAPE to Student.

Second, while I credit Mother’s and Ms. Mason’s testimony that Mr. Wilder may not have delivered the observed structured literacy lessons with precise fidelity to Orton-Gillingham criteria, this, in itself, does not constitute a denial of FAPE to Student here,  in particular, because Student’s profile does not appear to require such exact fidelity. In fact, Ms. Mason, testifying on behalf of Parents, stated that Student “does not require a full-blown OG lesson. Orton-Gillingham does cover comprehension, but…the focus needs to be…on his particular areas of vulnerabilities…He probably doesn’t need most of the components of it…” I find Ms. Mason’s testimony to be credible, as it was candid,  consistent with the testimony of other witnesses regarding Student’s strengths and weaknesses, and consistent with the BCH evaluation.  Further, the record reflects that Student has been making effective progress.

Lastly, while the peer grouping in Mr. Wilder’s class is not ideal, Student and the other peer are not so mismatched as to deprive Student of FAPE. The testimony of Susan Douyotas was persuasive that Mr. Wilder was able to individualize instruction to meet Student’s needs, and that Student’s stronger decoding skills were “balanced out” by the peer’s stronger attentional skills and focus.

The record is clear that Student has relatively strong—generally average—skills in phonemic awareness and decoding. (See, for example, the undisputed testimony of Wilder, Mason, Madden, and the BCH report of June 2025 at exhibit P-3). Rather, his areas of vulnerability in reading are in comprehension and fluency. BCH recommended that Student receive reading instruction that targets these areas, Ms. Mason endorsed this recommendation and indicated that Student does not necessarily need an Orton-Gillingham approach.  While Mother testified credibly that Orton-Gillingham can be used to address comprehension and fluency, Parents have not demonstrated that Mr. Wilder has failed to do so to the extent that Student has been denied a FAPE, or that Student has not made progress in these areas. (See testimony of Wilder and Holmes) In general, I credit the testimony of Mr.Wilder, Ms. Mason, and Ms. Holmes that Student has, in fact, been making effective progress in reading, including in comprehension and fluency.

Based on the foregoing, Parents have not met their burden on this issue.

Issue 2: For the 2025-2026 school year, did Winthrop fail to provide FAPE by not providing speech-language therapy (3×30 minutes per week) in the C grid?

I find that Parents have not met their burden on this issue for the IEP covering December 2024-December 2025, as applicable to the 2025-2026 school year; however, the record supports careful consideration of Student’s speech/language therapy needs, prospectively.

As a threshold matter, a careful review of the documentary record reveals that Parents never rejected the District’s refusal to increase Student’s speech/language services to from twice-weekly to three times per week. As such, the BSEA cannot rule on the appropriateness of an IEP, or portion of an IEP, that has been accepted and implemented, and not rejected during its term.

Additionally, the BCH recommendation for three sessions of speech/language therapy per week was predicated on having Student’s phonemic/decoding needs addressed during such sessions. Because he received such services in another setting (Mr.Wilder’s class), and because Ms.Madden testified credibly that Student has made progress in speech/language therapy, I cannot find that Student was denied a FAPE during the IEP period in question.

Nonetheless, the record indicates that Student’s challenges in speech/language and communication are significant, and warrant serious examination by the Team in the future.[7] Specifically, Student has difficulty with speech production, comprehension of complex orally-presented information, including understanding of narratives, and expressing himself in a coherent, logically-ordered manner. (See BCH report and testimony of Mason, Madden, and O’Neill)

I credit the testimony of the private therapist, Briana O’Neill that these challenges are complicated by Student’s relative weakness in working memory as well as his issues with attention and self-regulation. While Student has made progress during the IEP period at issue, it should be noted that in addition to his twice-weekly school-based therapy, he has been receiving private speech/language therapy from Briana O’Neill since he was two or three years old and currently receives services from her twice per week.

While Parents have not proved a lack of progress due to his receiving two, rather than three half-hour sessions of speech therapy in school, It is impossible to parse out how much of Student’s progress is attributable to his in-school sessions and how much to his work with Ms. O’Neill. The District is strongly advised to closely scrutinize the evaluative information regarding Student’s speech/language needs when formulating goals and determining services in his next IEP, including consultative services between the school-based speech/language therapist, private therapist, and instructors.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Parents have not met their burden of persuasion regarding Issues 1 and 2.  As such, I conclude that Student was not denied a FAPE during the 2025-2026 school year with respect to those issues.  However, as stated above, the District is urged prospectively to closely consider Student’s needs regarding speech/language therapy in light of his complex communication profile.

Lastly, I commend both parties for their skilled and thoughtful presentation of their respective cases, as well as their courtesy and professionalism.  

By the Hearing Officer,

/s/ Sara Berman                    Dated: January 21, 2026

Sara Berman

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS

EFFECT OF FINAL BSEA ACTIONS AND RIGHTS OF APPEAL

Effect of BSEA Decision, Dismisssal with Prejudice, and Allowance of a Motion for Summary Judgment

20 USC §1415(i)(1)(B) requires that a decision of the Bureau of Special Education Appeals be final and subject to no further agency review.  Similarly, a Ruling Dismissing a Matter with Prejudice and a Ruling Allowing a Motion for Summary Judgment are final agency actions.  If a ruling orders Dismissal With Prejudice of some, but not all claims, or if a ruling orders Summary Judgment with respect to some, but not all claims, the ruling of Dismissal with Prejudice or Summary Judgment is final with respect to those claims only.

Accordingly, the Bureau cannot permit motions to reconsider or to re-open either a Bureau decision or the Rulings set forth above once they have issued.  They are final subject only to judicial (court) review. 

Except as set forth below, the final decision of the Bureau must be implemented immediately.  Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 30A, §14(3), appeal of a decision does not operate as a stay.  This means that the decision must be implemented immediately even if the other party files an appeal in court, and implementation cannot be delayed while the appeal is being decided.  Rather, a party seeking to stay—that is delay implementation of—the decision of the Bureau must request and obtain such stay from the court having jurisdiction over the party’s appeal. 

Under the provisions of 20 USC §1415(j), “unless the State or local educational agency and the parents otherwise agree, the child shall remain in the then-current educational placement,” while a judicial appeal of the Bureau decision is pending, unless the child is seeking initial admission to a public school, in which case “with the consent of the parents th child shall be placed in the public school program.” 

Therefore, where the Bureau has ordered the public school to place the child in a new placement, and the parents or guardian agree with that order, the public school shall immediately implement the placement ordered by the Bureau.  School Committee of Burlington v. Massachusetts Department of Education, 471 U.S. 359 (1985).  Otherwise, a party seeking to change the child’s placement while judicial proceedings are pending must ask the court having jurisdiction over the appeal to grant a preliminary injunction ordering such a change in placement.  Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988); Doe v. Brookline, 722 F.2 910 (1st Cir. 1983). 

Compliance

A party contending that a Bureau of Special Education Appeals decision is not being implemented may file a motion with the Bureau of Special Education Appels contending that the decision is not being implemented and setting out the areas of non-compliance.  The Hearing Officer may convene a hearing at which the scope of the inquiry shall be limited to the facts on the issue of compliance, facts of such a nature as to excuse performance, and facts bearing on a remedy.  Upon a finding of non-compliance, the Hearing Officer may fashion appropriate relief, including referring the matter to the Legal Office of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education or other office for appropriate enforcement action.  603 CMR 28.08(6)(b). 

Rights of Appeal

Any party aggrieved by a final agency action by the Bureau of Special Education Appeals may file a complaint in the state superior court of competent jurisdiction or in the District Court of the United States for Massachusetts for review.  20 USC §1415(i)(2). 

Confidentiality

In order to preserve the confidentiality of the student involved in these proceedings, when an appeal is taken to superior court or to federal district court, the parties are strongly urged to file the complaint without identifying the true name of the parents or the child, and to move that all exhibits, including the transcript of the hearing before the Bureau of Special Education Appeals, be impounded by the court.  See Webster Grove School District v. Pulitzer Publishing Company, 898 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990).  If the appealing party  does not seek to impound the documents, the Bureau of Special education Appeals, through the Attorney General’s Office, may move to impound the documents. 

Record of the Hearing

The Bureau of Special Education Appeals will provide an electronic verbatim record of the hearing to any party, free of charge, upon receipt of a written request.  Pursuant to federal law, upon receipt of a written request from any party, the Bureau of Special Education Appeals will arrange for and provide a certified written transcription of the entire proceedings by a certified court reporter, free of charge. 

[1] The speech/language evaluation report was included in Parents’ exhibits; the OT and PT evaluations were not.

[2] The reports themselves are not contained in the documentary record. The contents of the psychological evaluation is reflected in the IEP Amendment issued in May 2025 (S-4), as well as in the report from the BCH evaluation conducted in June 2025. (P-3)

[3] Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence, 4th Edition.

[4] The record is unclear regarding PT and ESY, as prior IEPs contained in exhibits do not provide PT or ESY services.

[5] In C.D., the First Circuit reiterated its conceptualization of FAPE set forth in earlier cases as educational programming that is tailored to a child’s unique needs and potential, and designed to provide “‘effective results’ and ‘demonstrable improvement’ in the educational and personal skills identified as special needs.” 34 C.F.R. 300.300(3)(ii); Burlington II, supra; Lenn v. Portland School Committee, 998 F.2d 1083 (1st Cir. 1993);  D.B. v. Esposito, 675 F.3d 26, 34 (1st Cir. 2012)

[6] Parents in the instant case have alleged no procedural violations by Winthrop, and it is clear from the record that Parents have been active participants in developing and monitoring Student’s educational programming.

[7] Student’s IEP expired on or about December 15, 2025.

Updated on January 26, 2026

Related Documents