In Re: Evan & Belmont Public Schools (BSEA #25-11078) — Decision 8/19/2025

What the case was about

Parents argued Belmont’s IEPs (reading-only pullout 5×30/week, multisensory/structured literacy, ESY 4×75) were insufficient for their 8-year-old with SLD/dyslexia (automaticity/fluency weaknesses) and sought reimbursement for unilateral placement at Carroll. Belmont maintained its IEPs met FAPE in the LRE.

Key facts the Officer emphasized

• Progress in district: Kindergarten through Grade 1 data (DIBELS, F&P levels, sight words, dictation) showed steady progress, even before the teacher completed OG training; progress continued with OG-infused instruction thereafter.

• Independent eval (Apr 2024): Neuropsychologist diagnosed orthographic processing dyslexia, highlighted automaticity/fluency as key weakness, recommended added supports (repeated exposure, RAVE-O/Megawords, writing fluency work, AT, extra time). She did not recommend a substantially separate placement and did not require OG specifically.

• District response: Belmont amended the IEP after that report: more reading time (from 4×30 to 5×30), expanded ESY (to 4×75), and additional accommodations; team considered and documented why separate writing/EF/OT goals weren’t added (classroom performance deemed developmentally appropriate; spelling addressed within reading goal).

• Private services: Summer 2024 1:1 OG tutoring showed gains (wpm and sight words). Carroll placement in 2024–25 produced positive growth and confidence, including RAVE-O and 1:1 OG tutorial.

• Program comparisons: Parents’ experts praised OG/structured literacy and criticized group delivery and balanced-literacy elements, but the record also showed OG-infused gen-ed blocks, small groups, and data-based regrouping at Winn Brook.

Legal reasoning (why Parents lost)

• FAPE standard = “reasonably calculated” to enable appropriate progress in light of the child’s circumstances (Endrew F.). The IEP is judged as a snapshot at the time of proposal—not in hindsight.

• The Officer found credible evidence of progress in Belmont’s program and that the amended services/accommodations aligned with the private neuropsychologist’s recommendations.

• Parents’ preferred methodology (explicit OG, 1:1 only, fully language-based school) was not shown to be necessary for Evan to receive FAPE. OG can be appropriate, but districts aren’t required to specify or use one named methodology if the IEP is otherwise reasonably calculated to confer benefit.

• LRE matters: A full-inclusion program with targeted pullout was appropriate where progress was occurring; moving to a substantially separate setting (Carroll) wasn’t required on this record.

• Because FAPE was offered, the decision did not reach:

  • Whether Carroll was appropriate as a unilateral placement, or

  • Notice/equitable factors for reimbursement.

Practical takeaways for advocates/parents

• Document progress vs. lack thereof: Concrete, longitudinal data (benchmarks, DIBELS, F&P levels, sight-word inventories, fluency rates) will make or break FAPE challenges.

• Tie recommendations to necessity: If seeking 1:1 OG, a writing goal, or language-based placement, ensure evaluators state these are required to make adequate progress—not just ideal—and link them to present levels and failed progress in the current setting.

• Methodology requests: Hearing Officers often decline to mandate a specific program (e.g., “OG only”) unless the record shows other approaches won’t provide FAPE for this student.

• LRE weighting: If the student is progressing in inclusion with pullout, you must show why inclusion can’t meet needs even with added aids/services.

• ESY & intensity: Increases in service minutes and ESY that respond to regression can help districts meet FAPE; challenge them with data if intensity remains inadequate.

If considering appeal or future action

• Strengthen the record with:

  • Curriculum-based measurement (CBM) graphs showing stalled fluency/automaticity despite fidelity to the IEP.

  • Expert testimony explicitly stating that without 1:1 OG and a language-based environment, Evan cannotmake appropriate progress—and why small-group delivery in this case is insufficient.

  • Specific fidelity concerns (who delivered instruction, training, components run each session, time-on-task) tied to lack of progress.

• Team requests to consider now (even post-decision):

  • Add a writing fluency/accuracy goal if classroom work samples show a need.

  • Embed RAVE-O or morphology work explicitly in service delivery.

  • Clarify progress-monitoring cadence (e.g., oral reading fluency weekly; sight-word mastery checks; curriculum-based dictation probes).

  • Specify the group size (e.g., 1–2) when data indicate that the student needs it to progress.

  • Ensure ESY uses comparable methodology and targets fluency/automaticity (not just maintenance).