1. Home
  2. Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) Rulings
  3. In Re: Student v. Pembroke Public Schools BSEA# 25-00070              
Searching...

Advanced Search +

In Re: Student v. Pembroke Public Schools BSEA# 25-00070              

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

Division of Administrative Law Appeals

Bureau of Special Education Appeals

In Re: Student v. Pembroke Public Schools

BSEA# 25-00070 
                 

Ruling on Pembroke Public Schools’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Claims in Parent’s Amended Hearing Request & Parent’s Request for Consolidation

Parent filed a Hearing Request on March 19, 2025, which request lacked the requisite information.[1]     

Using Parent’s partial rejection of the proposed IEP, Pembroke Public Schools (Pembroke or District) filed a Response to the Hearing Request on March 31, 2025.  Thereafter, on June 6, 2025, the District filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Motion). 

On June 18, 2025, Parent filed an Amended Hearing Request[2] and a request for consolidation of this matter with BSEA # 2413828, a separate matter filed by Pembroke involving public funding for an independent neuropsychological evaluation, before a different BSEA Hearing Officer.

Parent’s Amended Hearing Request alleges procedural violations, child-find violations and denials of FAPE, including failure to offer Student extended school year services.  Parent seeks the following findings and relief:

  1. Pembroke violated its child find obligations and denied Student a FAPE;
  2. The District’s evaluation and eligibility process were procedurally and substantively flawed;
  3. An award of compensatory education in reading and math based on services missed by Student;
  4. Reimbursement for privately incurred educational expenses at Sacred Heart School:
  5. An order that the district provide extended school year services;
  6. That the District be required to provide parents with clear and timely communications regarding parents’ rights and the district’s obligations for privately placed students;
  7. That BSEA cases #241328 and #2510070 be consolidated.

 A Recalculated Notice of Hearing was issued on June 20, 2025.

On June 25, 2025, Pembroke filed a Response to Parent’s Amended Hearing Request seeking an order that as a matter of justice and equity Parent’s Amendment be denied. The District assented to consolidation.

Between July 7 and July 14, 2025, the Parties disputed receipt and service of the Motion for Summary Judgment.   The record is persuasive that Parent was properly served via email and via US postal service mailing.  Notwithstanding the District’s proper service, Parent’s late submissions are considered for purposes of this Ruling.  

Parent filed Oppositions to the District’s Opposition to the Amended Hearing Request on July 7 and 8, 2025, and an Opposition to Pembroke’s Motion for Summary Judgment on July 11, 2025.

On July 8, 2025, the Parties requested and were granted a postponement of the Hearing which is scheduled to proceed on October 15 and 16, 2025.

This Ruling addresses the Motion for Summary Judgment, claims in Parent’s Amended Hearing Request and Parent’s request for consolidation.

Facts[3]:

  1. Student is an eight-year-old student who resides with Parent.  Student attends second grade at the Sacred Heart Elementary School (Sacred Heart), a private school in Weymouth, Massachusetts.
  2. Student completed Kindergarten in Pembroke during the 2022-2023 school year.
  3. Prior to entering Kindergarten Student received a heart transplant.
  4. On or about October  2022, Student was found eligible for a Section 504 Plan under the Health disability category.  The Section 504 Plan addressed issues relating to Student’s heart transplant.   
  5. According to Parent, by the end of the 2022-2023 school year, Student’s reading scores per the DIBELS decreased.  Parent partially attributed Student’s difficulties to her kindergarten classroom teacher taking a short-term medical leave early during that school year, leaving the paraprofessional to lead the classroom in the teacher’s absence.  Pembroke did not refer Student for a Team evaluation despite her reading struggles.  (Parent asserts that in failing to do so, the District failed its child-find obligations.)
  6. Parent enrolled Student at Sacred Heart for first grade the 2023-2024 school year. 
  7. In March of 2024, Parent referred Student for an evaluation in Pembroke, and the District completed the evaluations.  According to Parent, the consent form for this evaluation did not include a health assessment.
  8. Student’s Team convened on or about May 20, 2024, to determine eligibility for special education services. Parent was not provided with the evaluation reports at least two days before the meeting.
  9.  Student was not found to be eligible for special education, notwithstanding parental concerns regarding attention, academic struggles and possible ADHD. 

Following the Team meeting, Parent forwarded her rejection of the finding of ineligibility, and she requested additional evaluations inclusive of a health, speech and language screening, and a neuropsychological evaluation.  Pembroke forwarded a new consent form to Parent.

  1. Additional testing inclusive of behavioral rating scales, health and educational assessments were conducted and the Team reconvened to discuss the results on October 23, 2024.  At the meeting, the Team found Student eligible to receive special education services under a Health category.
  2. The Team reconvened on November 13, 2024, to determine the  services to be provided to Student.  The resulting IEP offered her participation in a full inclusion program at the Hobomock Elementary School (Hobomock) in Pembroke with the following services: Grid B-  30 minutes daily, push-in math and 30 minutes daily push-in reading; Grid C-  30 minutes daily math and 30 minutes daily reading services. (SE-1; SE-2).   
  3. During the meeting Parent inquired about provision of extended school year services and the District explained that Student had not demonstrated regression, and thus, ESY would be discussed in the spring of 2025. 
  4. Via email on November 14, 2024, Parent inquired about provision of “drop in” services and Pembroke responded that those services would be provided during the school day at Hobomock.
  5. Parent emailed Pembroke on November 18, 2024, inquiring about home-hospital services and later about service options including remote services or on-site services at Sacred Heart.  Parent also requested adjustments to Student’s services.  On November 18 and 19, the District responded, directing Parent to review the Massachusetts Special Education Regulations for information related to home/hospital services, and further noted that it was not responsible to offer Student services at the private school or virtually.  Rather, as a drop-in, the District would make services available during the school day at a Pembroke school facility.  Parent disputes that the aforementioned information satisfied the requirements of “Prior Written Notice”.  Nevertheless, she continued to engage in the IEP process without a clear understanding of the District’s legal position.
  6. Via email on November 22, 2024, Parent inquired as to transportation services and the District explained that,

As indicated in the law, 603 CMR 28 05(5)(a), if regular transportation is noted on the student’s IEP and the student is enrolled by his or her parents in a private school and receiving services under 603 CMR 28.03(1)(e), such student is not entitled to transportation services unless the school district provides transportation to students without disabilities attending such private school. Therefore, [Student] would not be eligible for transportation.

  1. Parent responded via email on November 26, 2024, seeking clarification on provision of equitable services and on development of an equitable plan consistent with conversations she had with the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE).  The District responded that its

…obligation to [Student] is to provide her with the quality, scope, and opportunity for participation to that provided to public school students. 603 CMR 28.03(1)(e)(4). So, like any Pembroke Public School student who has similar services, [Student] has the opportunity to access those services during the school day and on Pembroke Public Schools’ property. 603 CMR 28.03(1)(e)(3). 

What you are referencing is an educational service plan, which is available through the IDEA in the district in which Sacred Heart is located, not the district in which [S]tudent lives. 34 CFR 300.132(b).  So if you are interested in an educational service plan, you should be in contact with Weymouth, not Pembroke.

  1. On December 20, 2024, Parent rejected the IEP in part and refused the proposed placement in Pembroke (SE-1).  She also rejected the number of service hours, and the IEP’s failure to offer ESY, and transportation (SE-1).
  2. The Team reconvened on January 13, 2025, to discuss Parent’s rejections and concerns involving the District’s failure to offer home-based services when Student was well enough to learn but unable to attend school (SE-3).  Regarding delivery of drop-in services, relying on the information provided to Parent on November 18 and 19, 2024, Pembroke again stated that that it was not required to provide services outside Hobomock at alternate locations, and explained that Parent’s rejection of the placement did not result in an alternate school for services.  The District further explained the principles of “neighborhood school assignment” and “least restrictive environment” requirements of the IDEA.  Lastly, Pembroke asserted its position that Student’s needs could be fully met in an inclusion setting at Hobomock and therefore, an out-of-district placement would not be considered (SE-3).
  3. The January Team reiterated information previously addressed in the November 2024 emails responsive to Parent’s inquiries about home services consistent with a home/ hospital form in which the District explained that these services could be initiated upon completion of the form with medical documentation when Student was absent for 14 days (SE-3).  By January 13, 2025, Student had only been absent four days that school year (SE-4). 
  4.  The Team attempted to discuss Parent’s remaining concerns but, upon hearing that the Team would not reconsider alternatives to its initial proposal regarding Parent’s request, Parent opted to end the meeting (SE-3).
  5.  On or about May 20th[4], Parent emailed Pembroke requesting reconvening of the Team to discuss ESY.  Ms. Cross, a Pembroke staff, responded that, 

I do want to clarify that since [Student] has not accessed the services offered in her partially rejected IEP, we have not been able to provide special education services or collect data on her IEP goals.  As a result, we do not have the data necessary to assess regression of IEP goals over breaks in service – an essential component in determining Extended School Year (ESY).

  1.  As of June 6, 2025, Pembroke had not received the home/ hospital services form nor medical documentation supporting provision of said services (SE-4).
  2. Parent and her then attorney[5] met with the Team on June 11, 2025, at which time Parent presented “MAPP” data, but the District declined provision of ESY.
  3.  Student’s attendance record shows that she was absent eight times: four due to vacation, one for a medical appointment and three due to illness (SE-4).
  1. Legal Standards:
  1. Statute of Limitations:

Consistent with 20 USC §1415 (b)(6)(B), due process special education hearing requests are subject to a two-year statute of limitations, unless one of two exceptions is met.  Consistent with the IDEA and MGL c. 61B, Rule 1 C of the Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals provides that,

A parent or agency shall request an impartial due process hearing within two (2) years of the date the parent or agency knew or should have known about the alleged action that forms the basis of the complaint.  This timeline does not apply if a parent was prevented from requesting a hearing due to either specific misrepresentations by the school district that it had resolved the problem forming the basis of the hearing request or the school district’s withholding of information from that parent that was required to be provided under federal law.

  1. Summary Judgment:

Embodying Rule 56 of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure (MRCP) and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), 801 CMR 1.01(7)(h), applicable to administrative proceedings in Massachusetts and the BSEA, provides that summary decision may be granted when there is “no genuine issue of fact relating to all or part of a claim or defense and [the moving party] is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.”  A fact is “material” if it could potentially affect the outcome of the case.[6]  A dispute is “genuine” when the evidence indicates it could be reasonably resolved in favor of either party.[7]  If no genuine issue of material fact exists, the party requesting summary judgment prevails.   

The party requesting summary judgment carries the burden of proof and must affirmatively demonstrate the absence of a genuine material dispute of fact, and show that it is entitled to a summary decision as a matter of law.[8]  The burden is met when the moving party submits affirmative evidence that negates an essential element of the opposing party’s case, or demonstrates that at trial, the non-moving party has no reasonable expectation of proving an essential element of his/ her case.  Flesner v. Technical Comm. Corp., 410 Mass. 805, 809 (1991); Kourouvacilis, 410 Mass. at 716. 

To survive a motion for summary decision, the non-moving party, herein Parent, must present specific factual evidence showing the existence of a genuine issue of fact for hearing and that there is sufficient evidence to permit a reasonable fact finder to decide in their favor.[9]  This requires that the evidence, not just the pleadings, be sufficiently substantial or relevant enough to overcome summary decision.[10]  In this context the mere existence of some alleged dispute of fact is insufficient to defeat an otherwise properly supported motion.[11]  

When reviewing a motion for summary judgment the hearing officer must view the evidence and draw all inferences in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.[12] 

  1. Application of Legal Standards and Legal Conclusions:

Statute of Limitations:

The District filed the instant Motion shortly before Parent amended her Hearing Request on June 18, 2025.  The claims in Parent’s amendment involve allegations regarding Child Find obligations and alleged procedural violations related to a March 2023 IDEA eligibility meeting; allegations regarding failure to offer ESY based on data from the spring of 2023 and the fall of 2024; and denials of FAPE related to lack of advanced notice that Pembroke would provide drop-in services and that the District intended to file the instant motion for summary judgment. 

In its Response and Opposition to Parent’s Amended Hearing Request, the District objects to allowance of claims falling outside the IDEA’s 2-years statute of limitations, that is, prior to June 16, 2023, which were known to Parent prior to filing her initial Hearing Request on March 19, 2025,  including Child Find violations, procedural violations related to a March 2023 eligibility meeting, and any claims regarding ESY stemming from spring 2023 data.  Pembroke takes Parent’s late filing of claims known to her at the time of the initial filing as a sign of bad faith.  Pembroke further asserts that Parent’s claim regarding failure to receive advanced notice of the District’s intention to file a motion for summary judgement is not actionable. 

In her response to the District’s Opposition Parent denies acting in bad faith and seeks “equitable tolling” of the statute of limitations.

Parent’s initial Hearing Request did not contain a description of the issues to be decided or state the relief sought.  As such, it was insufficient for purposes of proper filing despite the District’s failure to challenge the sufficiency of the Hearing Request.  Parent’s Amended Hearing Request however, provided said information. 

Parent seeks equitable tolling of the statute of limitations on the basis that she did not understand or was not provided prior notice of the District’s actions.[13]  Moreover, Parent presents no credible evidence exempting her from the IDEA’s two-year statute of limitations, thus warranting application of said two-year limitation.  Therefore, Parent may proceed with claims surviving the instant summary judgment motion (infra) which  occurred on or after June 18, 2023.  Claims falling outside the aforementioned timeframe are time-barred and DISMISSED. 

Lastly, the District is correct that Parent’s allegation regarding failure to receive prior notice of the District’s intent to file a motion for summary judgement is not actionable.  As such, said claim is DISMISSED.

Summary Judgment:

Pembroke asserts that it is entitled to summary judgment as no genuine dispute of material fact exists and as a matter of law it is entitled to prevail. 

Parent’s first request involves provision of special education services through a virtual platform, before or after school, in Weymouth, because the private school Student attends is located within said school district.  Pembroke concedes the right of private school students to special education, but disputes that said right extends to locations chosen by the parents.[14]  Pembroke states that it has no authority to schedule services within the Weymouth school district, nor is it required to do so as a matter of law.  Pembroke asserts that it is not obligated to offer Student’s IEP services through a virtual platform, or outside school hours where it is not its practice to do the same for its public-school students.  Pembroke argues that it has fulfilled its obligation to offer services that are “comparable in quality, scope, and opportunity for participation to that provided to public school students” in the form of drop-in services at Hobomock (Student’s school according to residency) during regular school day hours.

Pembroke seeks summary judgement as to these requests.

Consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution and 603 CMR 28.03(1)(e)(3) addressing provision of state and locally funded special education services to students whose parents have placed them in private schools at private expense, public school districts are required to offer said students special education services at a public-school facility or other public or neutral site.  To the extent that Pembroke seeks summary judgement on the issue of provision of services at an “alternate location”, this issue may not be disposed of through summary judgement.  To the extent that Parent’s request involves provision of special education services within the Weymouth Public Schools, summary judgment in this regard is ALLOWED.

I next address Parent’s request that the Home Health Policy be integrated into Student’s IEP. The District is correct that 603 CMR 28.01(3)(c) requires school districts to provide home hospital instruction to students who are confined to their home and/ or a hospital, for medical reasons, for fourteen school days, upon receipt of a physician’s written order. 

In situations involving private school students who receive special education services through an IEP from the public school where they reside, the district of residence is responsible for offering the home/ hospital instruction during the period specified by the physician’s order.  In such cases, the student’s IEP may be amended to include the home/ hospital services.[15]

Pembroke asserts that Parent has not furnished a physician’s written order affirming that Student will be out of school for fourteen days or more, for medical reasons, nor was Student out of school for fourteen days or more for medical reasons during the 2024-2025 school year.  Parent disputes this assertion, but she presented no physician’s order to rebut the District’s assertion.  As noted earlier, in the context of summary decision, the mere existence of some alleged dispute of fact is insufficient to defeat an otherwise properly supported motion.[16]  Absent a physician’s statement that complies with 603 CMR 28.01(3)(c), the District need not offer home/ hospital services to Student nor amend her IEP to reflect provision of such services.  The District’s request for summary judgement as a matter of law on this issue is ALLOWED. 

In her Opposition to the District’s Opposition to the Amended Hearing Request, Parent explained that her Amended Hearing Request was her attempt to clarify the issues for hearing.  Specifically, she disputes that her request for ESY was limited to June of 2023, notes that procedural violations are ongoing, disputes findings regarding eligibility for certain services, the frequency, intensity and location for provision of services, and her right to public funding of a neuropsychological evaluation.  In her July 11, 2025, Opposition to the District’s Motion, Parent further argues that “Pembroke’s characterization of the record is replete with inaccuracies, omissions, and procedural violations that raise substantial questions about its fulfillment of its obligations” consistent with IDEA, Section 504, and Massachusetts Special Education Regulations.”  According to Parent, Pembroke omitted key facts, distorted the narrative and misapplied the law.  She explained  that she did not receive the email dated November 26, 2024 referencing Weymouth,  that her Child Find claim is related to the fall 2024 finding of eligibility, and claims that the District did not discuss transportation, unilaterally imposed a rigid schedule for provision of services with no alternatives, refused to collaborate with Parent and teachers of the Sacred Heart, disregarded or misrepresented documentation presented by Parent supportive of home/ hospital services, and impeded Parent’s participation at Team meetings.  As Pembroke disputes these allegations an evidentiary hearing is required in order to resolve same, these issues may not be disposed of through summary judgment.

Lastly, Pembroke asserts that Student is not entitled to compensatory services as it offered Student special education services consistent with its mandate under 603 CMR 28.03(1)(e)(4).[17]  Parent however, rejected delivery of services in Hobomock, and declined Student’s participation in the services offered.  Parent disputes that the services and location were appropriate.  This issue insofar as it involves provision of FAPE cannot be disposed of through summary judgment. 

In sum, viewing the evidence and drawing all inferences in the light most favorable to Parent,[18] as I am required to do, I find that disputes of material fact exist regarding some of Parent’s claims.  As such, the District’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to the issues listed below is DENIED. 

Parent may proceed to hearing on the following issues for the period starting on June 18, 2023:

  1. Whether Pembroke violated its child find obligations and denied student a FAPE from June of 2023 forward;
  2. Whether the services and placement offered by Pembroke in the IEP from November of 2024 to November of 2025 were reasonably calculated to offer Student a FAPE in the LRE;
  3. Whether Student is entitled to receive special education services at a public school facility or other public or neutral site;  
  4. Whether Student was entitled to receive ESY services in 2025;
  5. Whether Student is entitled to specialized transportation[19];
  6. Whether Student is entitled to compensatory education services in reading and math based on proposed services she missed from November of 2024 to date;
  7. Whether Parent is entitled to reimbursement for privately incurred educational expenses related to Student’s attendance at Sacred Heart School[20]:
  8. Whether commencing with 2023, the District violated Parent’s procedural due process rights including denial of meaningful participation at IEP meetings, failing to provide clear and timely communications regarding parents’ rights, and the District’s obligations for privately placed students;
  9. (If this matter is consolidated with BSEA #2413828 at a later time consistent with the discussion in the section below addressing consolidation): whether Pembroke’s evaluations were comprehensive and appropriate; and if not, whether Student is entitled to a publicly funded neuropsychological evaluation. 

 Parent is reminded that at the hearing on the merits she carries the burden of persuasion pursuant to Shaffer v. Weast, 126 S.Ct. 528 (2005), and must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that her position regarding each one of her surviving claims is correct. 

Parent’s Request for Consolidation:

Citing to overlap of timelines, fairness and efficiency, Parent requests consolidation of BSEA # 2413828 and BSEA # 2510070, and if consolidation is denied, Parent seeks to include the issues raised by Pembroke in BSEA # 2413828 (i.e., that its evaluations were comprehensive and appropriate and that it is not responsible to fund an independent neuropsychological evaluation for Student) in the instant case. 

Pembroke assents to consolidation.  While there are no apparent reasons to deny consolidation, given that BSEA # 2413828 is before a different hearing officer, the Parties must seek Hearing Officer Berman’s assent to reassignment of said case before I may consolidate both matters.  The Parties may proceed with said request.

ORDERS:

  1. Summary judgment on the issue of inclusion of home/hospital services in Student’s IEP for the period from June 2023 through June of 2025 is ALLOWED.
  2. Summary judgment as to Pembroke’s responsibility to offer Student services specifically within the Weymouth Public School district is ALLOWED.
  3. Whereas Parent has been ordered to provide clarification regarding issues e and g, she shall do so within seven days of the date of receipt of this Ruling.

So Ordered by the Hearing Officer,

/s/ Rosa I. Figueroa

Rosa I. Figueroa

Dated: September 24, 2025

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS

EFFECT OF FINAL BSEA ACTIONS AND RIGHTS OF APPEAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

Compliance

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

Rights of Appeal

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

An appeal of a Bureau decision to state superior court or to federal district court must be filed within ninety (90) days from the date of the decision. 20 U.S.C. s. 1415(i)(2)(B).

Confidentiality

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

Record of the Hearing

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

[1]   A sufficiency challenge was not filed.

[2]   Parent’s Amended Hearing Request alludes to exhibits to be submitted at a later time.  Parent never filed any such exhibits.

[3]   The facts delineated in this section are taken as true for purposes of this Ruling only.

[4]   Parent did not provide the specific year.

[5]   Parent’s submissions state that she has consulted and/or has been represented by an attorney at different intervals between 2023 and present day.

[6]  See Carey v. New England Organ Bank, 446 Mass. 270, 278 (2006); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

[7]   Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-2 (1986).

[8]   Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 389 U.S. 144, 157 (1970).; See also, Ng Bros. Constr., Inc. v. Cranney, 436 Mass. 638, 644 (2002), citing Pederson v. Time, Inc., 404 Mass. 14, 17 (1989); Kourouvacilis v. Gen. Motors Corp., 410 Mass 706, 716 (1991) (requiring that the moving party demonstrate the absence of a triable issue and that the record entitles the moving party to judgment as a matter of law.)

[9]   Anderson, 477 U.S. 242 at 250.

[10]   Id. at 249.

[11]   See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-2 (1986).

[12]  McCarty v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 56 F.3d 313, 315 (1st Cir. 1995). See also, Jupin v. Kask, 447 Mass. 141, 143 (2006), citing Coveney v. President & Trustees of the College of the Holy Cross, 388 Mass. 16, 17 (1983).

[13] By her own admission, starting in 2023, Parent has been represented and/ or has consulted with an attorney at different intervals, including during the pendency of the instant case.  Her access to legal counsel dilutes claims challenging her understanding, or the District’s transparency.

[14]   See Hellman v. Dep’t of Elementary and Secondary Educ., —F.Supp.3d—, 2025, WL 976567 (D. Mss. 3/31/2025) (“The ‘general school environment’ to which the regulation refers is not ‘the school that [children] attend’… As such, defendants [school district] do not deny ‘benefits equally available to all’ so long as they seek to ensure that private school students, just like public school students, are integrated into learning environments with non-disabled students ‘to the maximum extent appropriate.’”).

[15]   603 CMR 28.01(3)(c); Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Questions and Answer Guide on the Implementation of Educational Services in the Home or Hospital (June 2021), https://www.doe.mass.edu/prs/ta/hhep-qa.html (DESE Home/Hospital 2021 Q& A).

[16]   See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-2 (1986).

[17]   Special education services that are “Comparable in quality, scope, and opportunity for participation to that provided to public school students.”

[18]  McCarty v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 56 F.3d 313, 315 (1st Cir. 1995). See also, Jupin v. Kask, 447 Mass. 141, 143 (2006), citing Coveney v. President & Trustees of the College of the Holy Cross, 388 Mass. 16, 17 (1983).

[19]   Regarding this claim, Parent shall clarify the location to which she asserts Pembroke is responsible to transport Student via specialized transportation.

[20]   Parent shall clarify the specific services associated with Sacred Heart. 

Updated on October 17, 2025

Related Documents