In Re: Dudley-Charlton Regional School District v. Student BSEA# 26-01884

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS

BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS

In Re: Dudley-Charlton Regional School District v. Student                        

BSEA# 26-01884        

DECISION

This decision is issued pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 USC 1400 et seq., (hereafter IDEA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 USC 794), the state special education law (MGL ch. 71B), the state Administrative Procedure Act (MGL ch. 30A), and the regulations promulgated under these statutes. 

On August 8, 2025, Dudley-Charlton Regional School District (Dudley-Charlton or District) filed a Request for Hearing in the above-referenced matter.  Following two Parents initiated requests for postponements of the hearing, received on August 21 and September 4, 2025,[1] both granted for good cause, the Hearing was postponed to October 9, 2025.   The October 9, 2025, Hearing was held in person, at Worcester Superior Court, in Worcester, Massachusetts, for all participants with the exception of Parents and their advocate, who appeared remotely.  Parents requested and were granted the opportunity to open the hearing to the public.[2]  However, as Parents did not sign the waiver of confidentiality required to proceed with a public hearing,[3] the hearing was closed to the public.   

Those present[4] for all or part of the proceedings were:  

Father         

Kelly LaRoe                     Advocate

Marianne Peters, Esq.     Attorney for Dudley- Charlton

Lisa Petrell Delude           Special Education Coordinator Administrator, Dudley-Charlton   

Kelly True                       Assistant Superintendent, Dudley-Charlton   

Stephen Lamarche           Superintendent, Dudley-Charlton

Heather Hariman             Director of Pupil Personnel Services, Dudley-Charlton

Mathew Greenberg          Director of Food Services, Dudley-Charlton

Kristen Stokowski            Special Education Teacher, Dudley-Charlton

Allyson Link                         School Psychologist, Dudley- Charlton

Stacy Jarvis                        Speech and Language Pathologist

Melissa Lupo                                 Court Reporter, Veritext Legal Solutions

The official record of the hearing consists of documents submitted by Dudley-Charlton and marked as exhibits SE-1 to SE-15 and recorded oral testimony.  Parents did not submit exhibits or a witness list by the extended deadline of October 3, 2025. 

Dudley-Charlton forwarded its exhibits and witness lists via email and in hard-copy to the BSEA.  The District also emailed the documents to both of Parents’ advocates, but one of the advocates refused to open the initial email attachment containing the exhibits shared through a shared file system because it “specifically stated that it tracked internally”. [5]  The District attempted to mail the documents to the advocate who would be representing Parents at hearing, but she refused to provide her home address, which is also her place of business, offering no other option to the District. Review of the administrative file shows that a second email with the exhibits in PDF format was forwarded to both advocates on October 3, 2025, at 5:27 p.m., in order that the advocates could open the attachments without having to provide any personal information.  The advocate continued to deny receipt and objected to admission of the District’s exhibits.  The exhibits were admitted over Parents’ objection.

The advocate further stated that Mother, who is an employee of at Dudley-Charlton, could not attend the hearing because the District had not given her the day off.  After the Hearing Officer inquired whether Parent had requested the day off and the District had denied her request, the District clarified that assuming that she would request the day off, the District had arranged for coverage, but Parent never in fact requested the time off.  Mother was working at Dudley-Charlton on the day of hearing.    

At the beginning of the hearing, Parents’ advocate stated that she and Father intended to leave the hearing after the Parties’ opening statements, as they were not being allowed to participate.  The Hearing Officer clarified that she was already participating and twice encouraged them to stay for the remainder of the hearing, have Parent make a sworn statement that reflected their position on the record, and avail themselves of the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.   Father attended most of the hearing, but left in the afternoon to pick up Student.  His advocate participated throughout the entire hearing and was afforded the opportunity to cross-examine all witnesses.  She later stated that they had stayed under duress.   Her request to continue the case to another day to present rebuttal testimony was denied, as, despite being aware of the hearing date since September 16, 2025, she did not submit a witness list or exhibits for hearing even by the extended deadline of October 3, 2025.  

At the conclusion of the taking of the testimony Dudley-Charlton requested and was granted the opportunity to make an oral closing argument at the conclusion of the hearing on October 9, 2025, but Parents orally requested the opportunity to file their closing argument at a later time.  Parents’ request was granted orally on the record, and October 16, 2025, was set as the deadline for submission of Parents’ written closing argument.[6]

The record closed on October 16, 2025, upon receipt of Parents’ written closing argument.  

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND:

Between September 4 and October 8, 2025, multiple motions and informal requests were received from the Parties as delineated below.

On September 4, 2025, Parents filed a Motion to postpone the Hearing and requested that the hearing be remote and open to the public.  If in person, Parents’ requested that it not be held at the BSEA in Malden, MA, but rather in Springfield, MA, where one of the advocates’ office is located and which was closer to Parents.  The basis for Parents’ venue request was that the advocate has a service dog and travelling to Malden, MA. would be too taxing on her service animal.

On September 8, 2025, the District filed an Opposition to Parents’ Motion to Postpone & for Public Hearing (discussed later in this Ruling).  In it, the District opposed Parents’ Motion for a public hearing, and requested that if the hearing was public it be held in person, preferably at the BSEA in Malden, MA, or in Worcester, MA., which is located closer to where Parents live.  The District objected to holding the hearing in Springfield, MA.  A Ruling issued on September 16, 2025, granted Parents’ request for postponement to October 9, 2025, and for a public hearing[7].   The hearing was scheduled to be held in person in Malden, MA.[8]  Parents’ advocate was directed to address her requests for accommodations to the designated official at DALA/BSEA, and she did so.  

Dudley-Charlton served Parents discovery requests on September 5, 2025, and requested that the BSEA shorten the 30-day timeline[9] for responding to discovery to September 29, 2025.[10] 

On September 5, 2025, Parents’ advocate[11] objected to shortening of the timeline for responding to discovery and further objected to releasing any communications between her and her clients.   

On September 12, 2025, the District filed Objections to Parents’ First Set of Interrogatories[12] and Motion for Protective Order, on the basis that many of Parents’ requests were overly broad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  The District further objected to requests that sought information protected under the attorney-client and/ or work-product privileges, or information relating to students other than Student in the case at bar.

A Ruling issued on September 16, 2025, shortened the timelines for the Parties to respond to each other’s discovery requests to September 29, 2025, granted the District’s requests for a protective order and also protected Parents’ communications with their advocates from August 8, 2025 (the day in which the District filed the instant Hearing Request) forward.

On September 15, 2025, Parents’ advocate filed a document entitled “Dudley’s Harassments [sic] and Discrimination of Parents’ Non-attorney Advocate is a Denial FAPE [sic] and violation of Parents’ IDEA rights separate from the child”, seeking an order that the District attorneys “act their level of education and stop interfering with the IEP process”, alleging that their actions denied Student a FAPE and violated Parents’ rights.[13]  Parents requested to be heard on their allegations/ motion.  Following partial granting of a three-day extension, over Parents’ objection, Dudley-Charlton filed an opposition to Parents’ submission on September 23, 2025, arguing that the advocate’s claims were not justiciable before the BSEA as she sought relief for “harms allegedly inflicted on her, not the Student”, and “the IDEA does not create a right of action for non-attorney advocates to seek relief based on the denial of disability-related accommodations” to the advocate individually.  The District further denied the advocate’s harassment and discrimination allegations and noted that procedural and substantive FAPE denial claims were not part of the case before the BSEA.  Parents’  September 18 and 22, 2025, email requests for telephone conference calls to further discuss the District’s actions were denied as was their request for a hearing on the motion.  Via Ruling issued on October 3, 2025, the remainder of Parents’ advocate’s claims involving alleged occurrences during a Team meeting not the subject of the instant matter were denied.

On September 23, 2025, Parents filed a Motion to Reconsider the September 16, 2025, Ruling and a request for an additional two-week postponement of the Hearing.  The motion sought a hybrid hearing (in person/ remote) to minimize undue burden on Parents’ having to travel to Malden, MA, and for the entire Ruling to be vacated.  Additionally, Parents’ submission alleged failure to provide Parents notice of a right to counsel and to offer them pro-bono assistance through the BSEA.[14]     

On September 29, 2025, the District opposed Parents’ requests, noting that two previous requests for postponement initiated by Parents had been granted, the second continuing the hearing to October 9, 2025, and that the District had already twice rearranged schedules and coordinated coverage for the individuals participating in the hearing.  The District argued that re-arranging everything a third time in a case involving a such a narrow issue would be burdensome. 

Parents’ third request for postponement of the district-filed Hearing was denied on October 3, 2025, but their request for a change of venue was granted.  The hearing was scheduled take place at Worcester Superior Court, an accessible location much closer to Parents’ home and the advocates’ places of business. 

On September 25 and 26, 2025, Parents’ advocate emailed the Hearing Officer requesting that in addition to provision of a stenographer, the hearing be recorded.  Parents’ request was granted.  Her request that a link for the public hearing be provided was however, denied, as it had already been determined that the public hearing would be in person at an accessible location in Worcester, MA, and she was reminded that individual requests for accommodations be directed to the ADA Coordinator, First Magistrate at the Division of Administrative Law Appeals (DALA), the designee responsible for addressing accommodation requests for DALA/ BSEA matters.

On September 26, 2025, Parents’ advocate filed a Complaint Regarding Discrimination, Ex-parte Conduct, Improper Influence and Denial of Rights, because her requests for conference calls and postponements of the hearing were denied.  She further alleged that communications with the District had been timely but not so with Parents; that requests for accommodations for the advocate had been disregarded, evidencing bias and discrimination; that improper ex-parte communications took place between BSEA leadership and an attorney in the District’s attorney’s office who sought technical assistance[15]; denial of ADA accommodations to the advocate; establishing an inaccessible hearing venue; appearance of collusion/bias resulting from the Hearing Officer’s and an attorney in the District’s law firm participation at an MCLE seminar and published articles thereby communicating outside of the formal record; improper conduct by a BSEA representative during an IEP meeting; failure to accommodate the needs of service animal; and denial of FAPE and a fair hearing because one of the advocates became ill. 

On September 27[16], 2025, Parents filed a Motion to Stay the Proceedings Pending Investigation Into ADA Violations involving her advocate’s requests for accommodations.  On September 29, 2025, the District responded to Parents’ motions noting that despite raising allegations of impropriety, Parents’ advocate had failed to cite examples of how they came to fruition.  Parents’ advocate disputed the District’s response later on September 29, 2025, and again on September 30, 2025, restating her previous arguments and objections.  

On October 1, 2025, the District filed a Motion to Compel Parents’ answers to interrogatories when they failed to comply with the Hearing Officer’s order shortening the timeline to respond to discovery.  The District’s motion to compel was allowed and Parents were ordered to produce their discovery responses by the close of business on October 3, 2025.  The Hearing Officer also extended the deadline to submit exhibits and witness lists to the close of business on October 3, 2025, and further allowed the District leave to supplement its exhibits based on Parents’ discovery production through October 6, 2025.  Parents did not produce responses to interrogatories by the established deadline, and did not submit a witness list or exhibits as noted earlier in this Decision. 

The October 3, 2025, Ruling addressed the aforementioned allegations and also denied Parents’ September 23, 2025, motion for recusal of the Hearing Officer.  Parents’ request to stay the proceedings was also denied on October 3, 2025.  This Ruling further noted that given the proximity to the Hearing, no further motions would be entertained.  Thereafter, between October 3 and 8, 2025, Parents’ advocate filed numerous additional motions.

On October 3, 2025, Parents’ advocate filed a Motion to Recuse [the] Hearing Officer and a Formal Complaint of Retaliation, Bias and Systematic Unfairness, alleging systemic retaliation, discrimination, inhumane treatment (with respect to the advocate’s service dog), and procedural violations regarding ADA accommodations by the Hearing Officer, the BSEA Director and the ADA Coordinator[17].

On October 8, 2025, two additional Motions seeking removal of the Hearing Officer were filed, a Motion to Appoint an Independent Hearing Officer and to Preserve Parents’ Rights Under the IDEA, ADA and Section 504, and a separate Motion to Recuse the Hearing Officer and Appoint an Independent Hearing Officer in the Above Referenced Matter Submitted Jointly to the BSEA and DALA. 

Parents’ October 3 and 8, 2025, motions and submissions were addressed at the beginning of the Hearing.  Parents’ Motions for recusal and/ or removal of the Hearing Officer, both treated as motions to recuse, were denied, for the reasons delineated in the Ruling issued on October 3, 2025.  As requested by the advocate, hearing participants were assured the same degree of care and respect extended to hearing participants in all hearings conducted by the undersigned Hearing Officer.  Regarding Parents’ request that they be able to participate safely, the advocate provided no information regarding specific concerns.  The Hearing was however, held at Worcester Superior Court, a location with security capable of assuring general safety for all participants.

The advocate’s requests for accommodations were addressed through previous rulings and orders, including the scheduling order on October 7, 2025,[18] and further through a scheduling order issued on October 8, 2025, granting Parents and their advocate remote participation[19] and ordering all other participants to attend the Hearing in person.  

On October 7, 2025, Parents filed a Motion with the “Hearing Coordinators” at DALA and BSEA raising similar concerns as those delineated supra.  Those concerns were addressed by DALA’s Chief Magistrate in a letter to the advocate dated October 8, 2025.  

Lastly, Parents’ initial advocate did not participate in the proceedings or otherwise communicated with the BSEA following a telephone conference call on August 28, 2025, date on which the second advocate entered her appearance and an email on or about September 5, 2025.  Both advocates participated in the August 28, 2025, conference call and they texted during the Hearing. 

ISSUE FOR HEARING:

1. Whether Dudley-Charlton’s three-year re-evaluation of Student was comprehensive and appropriate?  If not,
2. Whether Parents are entitled to public funding for independent neuro-psychological and educational evaluations of Student? 

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES:

Dudley-Charlton’s Position:

The District asserts that its three-year re-evaluation of Student was comprehensive and appropriate.  The evaluators used standardized measures widely accepted in their respective disciplines and practices.  Moreover, each evaluator possessed the requisite certification, licenses and qualifications needed to conduct the evaluations they performed.  The District filed the instant Hearing Request within five days of the date of receipt of Parents’ request consistent with the IDEA and the Massachusetts Special Education law and Regulations (Regulations).

Dudley-Charlton asserts that it met all federal and state legal obligations relating to independent evaluations, including providing Parents with information regarding Massachusetts’ voluntary income-based option for qualifying parents.  Parents did not access this option.  (Parents did not submit financial information that may have qualified them for sliding fee scale funding and the District notes that Student is not eligible for public funding of the independent evaluation based on eligibility for Free and Reduced Lunch.)

Having fulfilled its legal responsibilities Dudley-Charlton seeks an order that its evaluations are comprehensive and appropriate and thus, the District is not responsible for funding Parents’ independent evaluations.

Parents’ Position:

Parents assert that the BSEA and DALA have shown a consistent pattern of deliberate indifference toward Parents’ rights and the advocates’ rights, and the agency as well as the District discriminated against the advocate’s with respect to requests for accommodations involving her elderly service dog, and only granting access to remote participation within approximately 20 hours of the hearing date, leaving her little time to prepare for Hearing.  

Parents assert that the District did not release Mother from work so that she could attend the Hearing, thus placing Mother in the position of not participating in the hearing or risking her employment.  Parents further assert that personal prejudices against the advocate impacted Student’s ability to receive a FAPE and Student should be provided funding for the independent evaluations as a result of the District’s actions.

Parents assert their right to ensure that public funding for Student’s independent evaluations is secured through every legal avenue available to them.

FINDINGS OF FACT:

1. Student is a nine-year-old fourth grader who attends Dudley-Charlton and carries a diagnosis of dyslexia.  His entitlement to special education services is not in dispute.  Student is described as a kind, respectful and polite student who is a hard worker and is well liked by his peers.  He demonstrates solid foundational math skills and strong problem-solving abilities in math and science, but he struggles with reading decoding skills and writing resulting from his Dyslexia diagnosis (SE-1; SE-3). 

2. During 2022, while attending the Wachusett Regional School District (Wachusett), Student participated in a special education evaluation.  At the time, Student qualified for special education services under a category of communication disorder (SE-6B).  An academic/educational evaluation conducted in May of 2022, included the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test- Fourth Edition (WIAT-4), finding Student’s abilities to fall within the average and high average ranges in reading, mathematics and written expression; the Test of Early Mathematics Ability (TEMA-3) yielding an average range score; and the Test of Early Reading Ability- Fourth Edition (TERA-4) also yielding an average score (SE-6C).  A speech and language evaluation conducted on May 23, 24 and 26, 2022 included the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-5 (CELF-5), Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-5), Expressive Vocabulary Test- 3 (EVT-3), Voice, Fluency, Oral Motor assessment, and Goldman Fristoe Test of Articulation, 3^rd Edition (GAFT-3) (SE-6D).  The results of the CELF-5 placed Student’s expressive language, receptive language, language content, and language memory skills solidly in the average range (SE-2; SE-6D).  Per the PPVT-5/ EVT-5 Student’s receptive vocabulary skills scores were above the expected range and his expressive vocabulary skills were in the expected range for his age. However, because of the 23 point difference between receptive and expressive vocabulary the evaluator opined that Student may benefit from phonemic cues.  Student’s articulation skills per the GFTA-3 were also within the average range (SE-6D).  Lastly, Student’s 2022 evaluation included a psychological assessment performed on July 21 and August 8, 2022, which included the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children- Fifth Edition, parent and teacher forms of the Behavioral Assessment Scale for Children- Third edition, an observation, record review, parent questionnaire and consultation with school staff (SE-6B).  The cognitive and psychological assessments found Student’s cognitive abilities to generally fall within the average range, with a low average score working memory for which numerous accommodations that might already be implemented through best teaching practices were recommended (SE-6B).   

3. At Parents’ request, Drs. Caitlyn Burns, PsyD and Rafael Castro, PhD of the Integrated Center for Child Development, performed a Neuropsychological and Educational Assessment of Student on February 8 and 10, 2023 (SE-6A).  Student was six years old at the time of this evaluation.  The evaluation included the following testing: Beery-Buktenica Test of Visual Motor Integration (VMI), California Verbal Learning Test- Children’s Version (CVLT-C), Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing, Second Edition (CTOPP-2), Differential Ability Scale- Second Edition (DAS-II), Gray Oral Reading Test- Fifth Edition (GORT-5), select subtests of the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children- Second Edition (K-ABC), select subtests of the NEPSY-II, Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale, Second Edition (RCMAS-2), Test of Problem Solving, Third Edition Elementary: Normative Update (TOPS-3E: NU), Wechsler Intelligence [Scale] for Children- Fifth Edition (WISC-V), select subtests of the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test- Fourth Edition (WIAT-4), and the Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning- Third Edition (WRAML-III).  Student’s overall abilities clustered between the average and high average ranges and he demonstrated strengths across all areas with maximal competency in visual-spatial abilities.  Overall, his skills were found to be age-appropriate or above.  However, when further reviewing Student’s literacy progression, (decoding results on the WIAT-4 and the GORT-5[20]), and considering the amount of interventions (including significant supplementation by the family), provided over the previous year, the evaluators found that the variability depending on the way in which Student’s decoding abilities were assessed was remarkable.  They highlighted that Student’s “performance falls between two thirds to one and one third standard deviation below what would be expected given his age”, this in context of intact to advanced intellectual ability.  The evaluators thus determined that the standard deviation in performance constitutes a significant departure from what would be expected.  As such he was diagnosed with a Reading Disorder (Dyslexia) requiring interventions and accommodations through an IEP (SE-6A).

4. Student’s Wachusett Team reconvened in May of 2023, finding Student eligible for special education services under the disability category of Specific Learning Disorder (SLD) in reading (SE-1; SE-2; SE-3).  

5. Parents unilaterally placed Student at the Bancroft School in Worcester, MA, during the 2023-2024 school year, and then enrolled him in Dudley-Charlton for the 2024-2025 school year (SE-1). 

6. Upon entering Dudley-Charlton, Parents requested that his three-year re-evaluation be advanced.  The District agreed so as to better understand Student’s special education needs (SE-1; SE-2; SE-3; SE-10; Stokowski).

7. On September 5, 2024, Dudley-Charlton forwarded Parents the consent form to proceed with an educational achievement, psychological and speech and language evaluation as well as to conduct observations of Student (SE-10).  Shortly thereafter, Parents consented to the evaluation. 

8. Meghan McGrath, special education teacher at Dudley Elementary School, performed Student’s academic/ educational evaluation on September 12, 16, 17, 25, and 27, and October 1, 9 and 15, 2024 (SE-3).   Ms. McGrath is qualified to administer the evaluations she performed (Harriman).[21] 

9. Ms. McGrath performed the full battery of subtests in the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, 4th Edition (WIAT-4), Feifer Assessment of Reading (FAR), Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, 3rd edition (KTEA-3), Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing, Second Edition (CTOPP-2).  She also conducted a classroom observation and reviewed Student’s special education file and Wachusett IEP (SE-3; Stokowski). 

10. Student’s academic achievement test results show that his reading skills fall below grade and age level expectations, suggesting reading weaknesses (SE-3).  Ms. McGrath opined that Student met the criteria for double-deficit type disorder (mixed dyslexia), further noting that mixed dyslexia was the most severe type of reading deficit.  She indicated that Student required access to a reading intervention program to meet academic demands and curriculum rigor, despite his demonstrating “average overall language development and a wide breadth of vocabulary knowledge… strength in listening comprehension, oral language and phonemic proficiency” (SE-3).  Student also demonstrated low to below average independent writing abilities, especially in spelling, which correlates to his reading decoding weaknesses.  However, his “sentence formulation skills using appropriate syntax, grammar, capitalization and punctuation” were age appropriate and his writing fluency was a strength.  Student’s math skills were at the appropriate age and grade levels with strengths in math fluency, problem solving and numerical operation skills (SE-3).  Ms. McGrath also looked into Student’s Educational Assessment Part A and B, completed by Ms. Jorge, Student’s classroom teacher, which notes that Student requires support when using patterns in multiplication and when applying properties to multiply by 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 (SE-4).  Ms. McGrath recommended numerous classroom accommodations as well as access to a systemic phonics program that explicitly teaches spelling patterns and breaks down the sounds of language (SE-3).

11. Kristen Stokowski, second and fourth grade special education teacher at Dudley Elementary School (Dudley) holds a master’s degree and she is DESE certified in elementary education, English as a second language, and moderate special needs.  She also holds Dyslexia Practitioner 1 and an advanced certificate as a Dyslexia Practitioner, has received Orton Gillingham (OG) training and currently offers one-to-one instruction in OG at the Children’s Center for Dyslexia in Worcester, Massachusetts (Stokowski).  Ms. Stokowski completes the yearly required professional development courses to maintain her certifications.  At Dudley, she is responsible for providing direct services to students on IEPs and for administering academic educational evaluations (Stokowski).   Ms. Stokowski conducts between 10 and upwards of 20 academic evaluations per year at Dudley, having performed approximately 200 evaluations to date (Stokowski).  Ms. Stokowski testified that she first started working with Student in the spring of 2024, and currently offers him direct reading services per his IEP (Stokowski). 

12. Ms. Stokowski testified about testing responsibilities and Ms. McGrath’s evaluation of Student.  She explained that certain measures, such as the WIAT-4 (which aligns with the WISC), are typically performed and the results inform the additional testing required for the individual student (Stokowski).   Ms. Stokowski reviewed Student’s 2024 Academic Achievement Evaluation, she noted the tests performed as part of his evaluation, namely the WIAT-4 academic assessment, FAR (Feifer Assessment of Reading), KTEA (Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement), and the CTOPP (a comprehensive test of phonemic awareness) and stated that she is qualified to administer and interpret these standardized assessments, “routinely used in school evaluations” (SE-3; Stokowski).[22]  She further noted that classroom observations are part of a student’s academic evaluation and one was conducted on Student, whose active participation was noted by Ms. McGrath (SE-3; Stokowski). 

13. Ms. Stokowski explained that the WIAT-4 offers information as to a student’s reading, writing, oral language and math skills and includes a Dyslexia Index.  The Dyslexia Index considers the phonological processing and word reading scores as well as other basic reading components providing a score which helps identify the presence of Dyslexia.  The WIAT-4 also assesses both written language abilities (measuring an individual’s spelling, sentence composition and essay composition) and math abilities, measuring addition, subtraction and multiplication (Stokowski).  The FAR, which has its own Dyslexia Index score, measures reading abilities looking into similar skills as the WIAT, and is used to identify consistencies and inconsistencies in a student’s performance through comparison.  The CTOPP measures phonological processing, that is, the ability to work with sounds present in words, and is used as an indicator of potential reading deficits (SE-3; Stokowski).  The KTEA written expression and spelling subtests address written language and include an academic fluency subtest (Stokowski).  According to Ms. Stokowski, all of the tests and subtests selected for Student’s academic evaluation were appropriate, standardized and commonly used in achievement testing (Id.).

14. Ms. Stokowski testified that Mother has informally spoken to her at length about her concerns for Student, since even before Student entered Dudley-Charlton.  Ms. Stokowski informally shared information about Student with Ms. McGrath prior to performing Student’s academic evaluation, and Ms. Stokowski recommended administering the CTOPP to assess Student’s phonological processing skills during staff special education meetings (Stokowski).

15. Upon reviewing the results of Ms. McGrath’s evaluation of Student, Ms. Stokowski agreed with the evaluation’s analysis, conclusions and recommendations to address Student’s reading and writing deficits (Stokowski). 

16. Ms. Stokowski also reviewed Nicole Jorge’s (Dudley Elementary classroom teacher) comprehensive Educational Assessment Part A and B, describing Student’s performance in his academic areas, including English and math, and providing Student’s MAP scores from curriculum-based measures (Stokowski). 

17. Stacy Jarvis, M.S., CCC-SLP, Dudley-Charlton, performed Student’s speech and language evaluation on September 16, 18 and 19, 2024, in a mostly quiet and limited distraction setting (SE-2).  Ms. Jarvis holds a master’s degree in communication sciences and disorders, she is a licensed speech and language pathologist, and she participates in professional development, meeting the hour requirements to maintain her national licensure and Massachusetts DESE certification.  Ms. Jarvis holds Certification of Clinical Competence from ASHA, the national organization for speech, language and hearing.  She also holds Massachusetts State licensure and has a teacher’s license through DESE (SE-13B; Jarvis).  At Dudley-Charlton, Ms. Jarvis is responsible for conducting speech and language evaluations, providing speech and language services and she also supervises a graduate student (Jarvis).  She administers between 25 and 30 speech and language evaluations per year, estimating having completed between 500 and 600 throughout her career (Jarvis).

18. As part of Student’s 2024 speech and language evaluation Ms. Jarvis observed Student in the testing setting, conducted a record review (including the 2022 testing and Wachusett Regional School District’s IEP, SE-6D) and administered the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals- Fifth Edition (CELF-5) including the Sentence Comprehension, Word Structure, Formulated Sentences and Recalling Sentences subtests.  The tests and subtests of the CELF-5 measure receptive language, expressive language, language content and language structure, offering a comprehensive view of a student’s language and speech capabilities.  Student’s index scores in the CELF-5 tests and subtests were all in the average range.  Ms. Jarvis noted that Student evidenced some difficulty using the appropriate grammatical markers on the word structure subtest despite “being able to use given words to describe pictures with the appropriate grammar”, noting the emerging areas in this subtest.  His overall Core Language Score of 90 placed him in the average range of language functioning (SE-2; Jarvis).  

19. Ms. Jarvis also administered the Test of Auditory-Processing Skills- Revised (TAPS-4) to assess Student’s auditory memory and auditory perceptual skills.  According to Ms. Jarvis, given Student’s dyslexia diagnosis, the TAPS-4 would indicate if there were any difficulties with phonological processing or auditory memory.  This is not a test that Ms. Jarvis administers in all of her speech and language evaluations (SE-2; Jarvis).  His overall 90 standard score indicated that his phonological abilities (auditory processing skills) are average (SE-2).[23] 

20. Ms. Jarvis indicated that the evaluation measures selected were comprehensive and appropriate for Student, and she opined that the evaluation results accurately represented Student’s speech and language skills in the classroom setting. She concluded that while he did not require specialized speech and language services, he would benefit from classroom accommodations that included:
    • Present[ing] concepts in a variety of ways, with visual or auditory support
    • Conduct[ing] frequent check-ins for understanding.
    • Break[ing] down instructions and steps into smaller units.
    • Provid[ing] written instructions, posters, graphic organizers, etc. as reference tools. When [Student’s] speech or writing contains grammatical errors, show him the correct form in writing.
    • For frequently occurring errors, building the correct form usage/ instruction into daily oral language as practiced for the entire class. (SE-2).

21. Ms. Jarvis testified that she had opportunity to observe Student in the classroom, because she is frequently in his classroom providing services to other students.  She reported that Student was an active participant and got along well with his peers.  She testified that she has seen Student often, informally spoke with Mother (who is a colleague) regarding her concerns related to Student’s language processing skills, and spoke to two or three of his teachers (Jarvis).  Ms. Jarvis testified that Student’s performance did not raise any concerns in the area of speech and language (Jarvis). 

22. Katherine Kenyon, M.S., Ed.S., School Psychologist, Dudley-Charlton, performed Student’s psychoeducational evaluation on October 16 and 21, 2024 (SE-1). 

23. Ms. Kenyon performed a classroom observation, interviewed the teacher, reviewed records and administered the: WISC V; Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test (Bender), Second Edition; Behavior Assessment System For Children, Third Edition (BASC-3)- Teacher and Parent rating scales; and the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning, Second Edition (BRIEF 2)- Teacher.  Student’s cognitive abilities per the WISC-V were found to be in the High Average range (Full Scale IQ of 112), demonstrating very advanced verbal reasoning and language skills.  His visual-spatial processing skills were also in the High Average range and his Working Memory was age appropriate, but weaker than his verbal and visual-spatial skills.  On the Bender, which measures visual-motor integration skills, he performed in the low average range.  The BASC Teacher rating scale indicated that Student has “difficulty comprehending and completing school-work in several academic areas” but raised no concerns in other areas (SE-1).  Parent did not report any social-emotional concerns in the home on the BASC.  The teacher’s BRIEF scales reported appropriate ability to self-regulate at a basic level, noting that Student was able to resist his impulses and functions well in social settings.  Ms. Kenyon opined that the evaluation results offered a valid reflection of Student’s abilities.  She recommended supports for working memory (e.g., graphic organizers, visual aids, repetition, breaking tasks into smaller steps  and practicing memory exercises and games that target attention and recall), strengthening of fluid reasoning by increasing “opportunities to engage in higher-order problem- solving tasks”, leveraging verbal and visual-spatial strengths through hands-on activities and discussion-based learning, monitoring processing efficiency and challenging academic opportunities to stretch his cognitive potential especially in “language and reasoning-based tasks” (SE-1).

24.  Allyson Link, school psychologist, Dudley-Charlton, holds a master’s degree in clinical child psychology with a certification in school psychology and a certificate in child advocacy and policy.  She is licensed through the states of New Jersey and Massachusetts and holds national certification as a school psychologist.  As a school psychologist in Dudley-Charlton she is responsible for conducting psychological evaluations, interpreting the findings, and writing reports.  Ms. Link completed a graduate program with a practicum and internship in two different school districts, where she was trained to administer psychological evaluations  while being supervised by a practicing school psychologist (SE-13B; Link).  At present, Ms. Link performs between 80 and 100 evaluations per year, and she estimates that she has conducted approximately 350 psychological evaluations in her career (Link).  Ms. Link testified that she uses a cognitive measure, typically the WISC, and depending on the concerns expressed by the teacher or parent during the interview portion of the evaluation, and/ or during her observation of the student in the classroom, rating scales and other assessments (Link).

25. Ms. Link testified regarding the Psychoeducational Evaluation completed by Ms. Kenyon[24].  Ms. Link opined that all the measures used by Ms. Kenyon were appropriate for Student, are routinely administered and standard in the practice (except for the Bender Visual-Motor Gestalt; she later added the BRIEF). (SE-1; Link).   Ms. link noted that Student’s evaluation included the WISC-5, which measures five areas of cognitive functioning; the BASC-3 to assess social emotional and adaptive skills ; the BRIEF, which assesses executive functioning ; and the Bender Visual-Motor Gestalt which measures visual-motor output (used when there are specific concerns related to language and motor ability) (SE-1; Link).  Despite not having met or evaluated Student, based on her knowledge, experience and review of Ms. Kenyon’s report, she opined that the measures used for Student’s psychological evaluation were appropriate and included instruments individually chosen for him as neither the BRIEF nor the Bender Visual-Motor Gestalt measures were typically administered in all re-evaluations (Link).  

26. Student’s Team convened on November 14, 2024, to discuss the results of Student’s evaluations (SE-5; Jarvis).  Finding that Student met the criteria for a specific learning disability that impacted basic reading skills, reading fluency, written expression and reading comprehension, the Team recommended development of an IEP to address those needs (SE-5; Jarvis).  At the meeting, Parents noted dissatisfaction with the evaluations (Jarvis). 

27. Harriett Harriman, Director of Pupil Personnel Services at Dudley-Charlton, testified that shortly after the Team meeting in November of 2024, Parents requested funding for an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE).  This was the first time they requested funding for an IEE.  Following the District’s filing of a BSEA Hearing to defend the appropriateness of the District’s evaluations, Parents withdrew their request for funding, and the District withdrew the request for hearing (Harriman).

28.  At Parents’ request, in April of 2025, Michele Clock conducted an independent speech and language evaluation (psycholinguistic evaluation) of Student (SE-8; SE-7).  Sometime during the 2024-2025 school year, Parents also arranged for Student to receive private reading services from Dr. Quinn (SE-9; SE-7).

29.  On May 27, 2025, Parents’ advocate filed a Problem Resolution System (PRS) Complaint with the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) on behalf of Parents (SE-7; Harriman).  The Complaint alleged that the IEP proposed by the District was inappropriate because it failed to offer Student speech and language, occupational therapy, written language services and structured spelling, which he needed to access the curriculum and make effective progress.  Parents also raised concerns regarding the reading services delineated in the IEP, something they had previously raised in a separate PRS Complaint.  Lastly, Parents alleged that the evaluations conducted by Dudley-Charlton were not comprehensive as they had failed to evaluate Student in all suspected areas of need (SE-7).  DESE PRS would enter a determination in July of 2024 (SE-7).

30. Student’s Team convened on June 5, 2025, to discuss the results of the private speech and language evaluation by Dr. Clock (SE-9; Harriman).  The Team, which had already identified written expression as an area of need in November of 2024, agreed to amend Student’s IEP to include his recent dysgraphia diagnosis, added accommodations, and recommended an occupational therapy evaluation due to concerns raised by the independent evaluator relating to dysgraphia.   The Team, however, rejected recommendations for provision of direct speech therapy, disagreed with Parents’ request for a more restrictive placement specifically designed for students with dyslexia, and declined to reimburse Parents for Dr. Quinn’s private reading services (SE-9; SE-7).  On June 10, 2025, Parents consented to the District’s proposed occupational therapy evaluation (SE-7; Harriman). 

31. On July 25, 2025, DESE’s PRS office issued a determination on Parents’ complaint, finding the District in compliance with its legal obligations pursuant to the IDEA.  Specifically, the finding disagreed with Parents’ position regarding the need for Student’s placement in a substantially separate classroom, determining that the District’s IEP was reasonably calculated to offer Student a FAPE in the least restrictive environment.  PRS further found that the District had met its legal obligations to conduct a comprehensive evaluation in all areas of suspected need (SE-7).  

32.  On August 4, 2025, Parents requested public funding for an independent occupational therapy evaluation and a neuropsychological evaluation that assessed all of Student’s areas of need and noted their disagreement that the District’s evaluations were comprehensive (SE-11). 

33. On August 5, 2025, Heather Harriman, the District’s Director of Pupil Services, denied Parents’ request for public funding of independent evaluations on the basis that the District’s evaluations were comprehensive and appropriate as had been determined by  PRS, that the District had acquiesced to Parents’ request for an occupational evaluation to be completed by the District, and noting that a neuropsychological evaluation was not an evaluation the District had conducted within the previous 16 months, thus not something the District would be responsible to fund.  Dudley-Charlton provided Parents information regarding eligibility for the sliding fee program and for funding pursuant to free/reduced lunch or educational surrogate parent (ESP) funding eligibility.  The District also provided information regarding income eligibility and the sliding fee program (SE-8).

34. On September 18, 2025, the District forwarded Parents the application forms and instructions for participating in the national school lunch program and the school breakfast program, but Parents responded that neither they nor their advocates had requested the forms (SE-12).  Via email on August 26, 2025, one of Parents’ advocates had noted his understanding that Student was entitled to funding for the independent evaluations because as a MassHealth recipient Student participated in the free school lunch program (Harriman; Administrative Record). 

35. Mathew Greenberg, Director of Food Services at Dudley-Charlton, is responsible for ensuring that the National School Lunch Program is run in accordance with federal and state standards, including direct certification of students into the Free and Reduced lunch program (Greenberg).  He explained that the Community Eligibility Program (CEP) is a federal program that reimburses districts if twenty five percent or more of their student population meets criteria for free and reduced lunch.  Students falling into this category are certified by the state of Massachusetts based on whether they meet criteria such as TANF or SNAP benefits, homelessness, are migrants, or are certified based on income following completion of the Supplemental Low Income Data Collection Form (SE-12; Greenberg).  The aforementioned form is posted on the District’s website and the District’s Food Service website at the beginning of the school year; thereafter, it is available upon request (Greenberg).

36. Mr. Greenberg explained that by law, in Massachusetts, all students are eligible for free lunch independent of whether or not they meet CEP criteria.  A virtual gateway system search by Mr. Greenberg confirmed that Student does not meet the CEP criteria.  Furthermore, Parents did not provided any financial information to the District or sought qualification on that basis.  Mr. Greenberg testified that receiving MassHealth benefits was not a basis for qualification (SE-14; Greenberg). 

37. In response to the District’s Attorney’s August 27, 2025 inquiry to DESE regarding independent educational evaluations and CEP eligibility, Kelsey LoDuca-Towne, Director of the Problem Resolution System Office at DESE, responded on August 29, 2025, that in the context of 603 CMR 28.04(5)(c)(1), “‘eligible for free or reduced cost lunch’ refers to students who meet the federal income eligibility guidelines for free or reduced price lunches.”  The “availability of universal free school meals in Massachusetts, does not mean that every student is now eligible for an independent evaluation at full public expense” (SE-15).

Student’s entitlement to special education services pursuant to federal[25] and Massachusetts special education law[26] is not in dispute.   The sole issue before me involves Parents’ right to a publicly funded independent evaluation (IEE)

As the moving party, Dudley-Charlton carries the burden of persuasion pursuant to Schaffer v. Weast, 126 S.Ct. 528 (2005).  Therefore, to prevail, the District must prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence.  In rendering my determination, I rely on and incorporate by reference the facts delineated in the Facts section of this Decision, focusing only on the most salient ones in the analysis below.

Having considered the evidentiary record [27] in the context of the applicable legal standards, it is clear that Dudley-Charlton has met its burden of persuasion in showing that its three-year re-evaluation was comprehensive and appropriate.  As such, the District is not responsible for funding Parents’ independent evaluations.  My reasoning follows.

The IDEA and accompanying regulations at 34 CFR.502(b), grant parents the right to an Independent Education Evaluation at public expense when parents disagree with evaluations conducted by school district, subject to additional conditions delineated in (b)2 through 4 of the aforementioned regulation.  Upon receipt of a parent’s request for an independent evaluation at public expense the district must without unnecessary delay:

1. File a due process complaint to request a hearing to show that its evaluation is appropriate; or
2. Ensure that an independent educational evaluation is provided at public expense, unless the agency demonstrates in a hearing pursuant to §§300.507 through 300.513 that the evaluation obtained by the parent did not meet agency criteria. 34 CFR.502(b)(2)(i) and (ii).

If, at the conclusion of a due process hearing, the district’s evaluations are found to be appropriate, the parents may proceed with an independent evaluation that is not funded by the school district. 34 CFR.502(b)(3). 

Further guidance on this issue is found at 603 CMR 28.04 et seq., the Massachusetts  Regulation addressing independent evaluations and a district’s responsibility to fund such evaluations.  Said regulation provides the timelines for completion of district evaluations and delineates the circumstances under which public school districts in Massachusetts are responsible to fund all or part of a parent’s requested independent evaluation following a completion of evaluations conducted by the school district.  603 CMR 28.04(5) et seq.

603 CMR 28.04(5)(d), specifically requires that

If the parent is requesting an independent education evaluation in an area not assessed by the school district, the student does not meet income eligibility standards, or the family chooses not to provide financial documentation to the district establishing family income level, the school district shall respond in accordance with the requirements of federal law. Within five school days, the district shall either agree to pay for the independent education evaluation or proceed to the Bureau of Special Education Appeals to show that its evaluation was comprehensive and appropriate.  If the Bureau of Special Education Appeals finds that the school district’s evaluation was comprehensive and appropriate, then the school district shall not be obligated to pay for the independent educational evaluation requested by the parent.

In Massachusetts, when a parent requests a publicly funded independent evaluation, districts are also required to abide by an additional provision involving a sliding fee scale.  Subsection (c)1 of 603 CMR 28.04(5) mandates that students eligible for free or reduced cost lunch, or those in the custody of a state agency with an appointed educational surrogate parent, are entitled to IEEs in the areas previously evaluated by the district at full public expense.  When the district lacks information about a family’s financial status, it must provide the family information regarding a sliding fee scale and an opportunity for the family to provide financial information to ascertain if they may qualify for public funding of part or all of the cost of the IEE.  603 CMR 28.04(5)(c) 2 and 3. If the family does not provide financial information the district must respond in accordance with the requirements of federal law as delineated supra.  

It is in the context of the above-noted legal standards that I now turn to the case at bar. 

The record shows that Parents requested public funding for an independent neuropsychological evaluation and an occupational therapy evaluation to assess all areas of Student’s suspected needs on August 4, 2025.  Parents further noted that the desired evaluations should include writing, speech and language, and specific learning disability in reading (SE-11). 

Via email on August 5, 2025, the District declined Parents’ request, asserting that the evaluations conducted by Dudley-Charlton were comprehensive and appropriate and noting that since the District had not performed a neuropsychological evaluation of Student, Parents were not entitled to public funding for an independent evaluation in that area (SE-11).  In its response, the District further noted that on June 5, 2025, Student’s Team had recommended  proceeding with an occupational therapy evaluation (this in response to Parents’ private speech and language evaluator’s diagnosis of dysgraphia), which evaluation had been agreed to by the Parties and was pending at the time of Parents’ request for funding of an independent occupational therapy evaluation.  Since Parents’ right to an independent evaluation had not yet accrued, the District asserted they were not entitled to funding for an independent occupational therapy evaluation (SE-9; SE-11). 

Thereafter, on August 8, 2025, consistent with 603 CMR 28.04(5)(d), requiring that districts file a hearing request before the BSEA within five calendar days of the date of receipt of a parent’s request for funding of an independent evaluation, Dudley-Charlton requested a Hearing before the BSEA.  The request was filed to demonstrate that its evaluations were comprehensive and appropriate and therefore, the District was not responsible for funding Parents’ desired independent evaluations.  The District’s timely filing complied with the requirements of 603 CMR 28.04(5)(d).

The record supports Dudley-Charlton’s position regarding an independent occupational therapy evaluation for Student.  In June of 2025, the Parties agreed that the District should proceed with an occupational therapy evaluation and the process to complete the evaluation and review its results was underway at the time of Hearing.    As such, at present, the issue of Parents’ right to an independent evaluation in this area is not yet ripe. 

Regarding Parents’ request for a neuropsychological evaluation, 603 CMR 28.04(5)(d) does not require that school districts fund evaluations in areas not previously identified and tested by the district.  Since Dudley-Charlton did not conduct a neuro-psychological evaluation of Student, it is not responsible to fund Parent’s desired evaluations in this area.                     

Parents’ request for funding of independent evaluations included a request to evaluate “all areas of suspected need”, that is, Parents’ request challenged the breadth and appropriateness of the District’s evaluations.

On or about September of 2024, Dudley-Charlton acquiesced to Parents’ request to advance Student’s three-year re-evaluation and as such the District completed its evaluations within the established timelines.  The record lacks any indication that Parents then requested evaluations different from or in addition to those to which they consented. 

The record further shows that all the District’s evaluators who performed Student’s 2024 evaluations were appropriately licensed and credentialed to perform the evaluations they conducted in their specific areas (SE-13A; SE-13B; Harriman).  Moreover, Ms. Stokowski and Ms. Link were also properly qualified and credentialed to offer an opinion at hearing regarding the evaluations they reviewed.  

The District’s evaluations, inclusive of the psychoeducational, speech and language and academic achievement evaluations, used appropriate and widely accepted measures of assessment, consistent with those previously used by Wachusett’s evaluators, Dr. Castro and Dr. Burns (SE-1; SE-2; SE-3; SE-6A; Link, Jarvis, Stokowski).  They also included assessments specifically selected for Student.  Similarly, Student’s Educational Assessment Parts A and B, completed by Ms. Jorge, was specific, descriptive and comprehensive as to Student (SE-4).  The results of the District’s evaluations were consistent with the results of Student’s 2022 and 2023 public and private evaluations, all of which supported a finding that Student presents with a specific language disability, Dyslexia, which impacts his reading and writing abilities

Next, Parents’ challenge regarding their lack of participation in the District’s evaluations is not supported by the record.  Mother had numerous informal discussions with evaluators and other District staff before, during and following the District’s evaluations.  District staff are not obligated to record every conversation they have with a parent, especially with one whom, by virtue of working in the District, has organic opportunities to converse with colleagues prior to and during Student’s evaluation period (Jarvis, Stokowski).  Moreover, the record shows that Mother completed the parents’ form of the BASC-3 offering her insight as to Student’s emotional and behavioral presentation outside of school (SE-1).  Lastly, Parents attended and participated in the November 2024 and June 2025 Team meetings convened to discuss the results of Student’s district and private evaluations.  These factors, taken together, support a finding that Parents were afforded an opportunity for meaningful participation in Student’s District evaluations. 

Lastly, the record convincingly shows that Student is not eligible for public funding of an independent evaluation on the basis of Parents’ income, pursuant to 603 CMR 28.04(5)(c)1, (c)2 or (c)3.  Mr. Greenberg testified persuasively that Student did not meet CEP criteria for free and reduced lunch and he had not been certified by the state of Massachusetts based on criteria inclusive of migrant status, receipt of TANF or SNAP benefits, or homelessness.  Student’s family also did not complete the Supplemental Low Income Data Collection Form, and Parents did not submit financial information to the District (either through discovery or otherwise) that may have allowed the District to ascertain whether the family may qualify for partial or total funding, consistent with the sliding fee scale. 603 CMR 28.04(5)(c)4.

The overwhelming weight of the evidence supports Dudley-Charlton’s position that its psychoeducational, academic achievement and speech and language evaluations were comprehensive and appropriate. Parents presented no evidence whatsoever to counter the District’s persuasive position.

As Dudley-Charlton has met its burden of persuasion pursuant to Schaffer, in showing that its evaluations were comprehensive and appropriate and thus, Parents are not entitled to funding for their independent evaluations of Student.  

ORDER:

1. Parents are not entitled to public funding for their independent evaluations of Student.        

By the Hearing Officer,

/s/ Rosa I. Figueroa

Rosa I. Figueroa

Dated: November 10, 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 (1^st 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]   Additional requests for postponement of the hearing received in September and October of 2025, were denied as discussed later in this Decision.         

[2]   The Public Hearing was announced on the BSEA website.

[3]   This form was emailed to Parents’ advocates the morning of the hearing.

[4]   Present as used herein shall include both in person and remotely.

[5] The District noted that the shared file system did not track people’s data, but simply required the individual to input their data to open the file.

[6]  An Order was issued on October 14, 2025, memorializing the Hearing Officer’s assent to Parents’ request for an extension to submit their closing argument. 

[7]  See 34 CFR §300.512(c)(2).

[8]  The BSEA office in Malden, MA. is the default venue for holding hearings until such time as an alternative location and/or platform is identified.   The building/ office is fully accessible.

[9]   See Rule 5.B of the Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals.

[10]  The District inquired whether it needed to file a more formal motion requesting shortening of the timelines which would typically be the case.  However, given that the Hearing was to take place on October 9, 2025, the District’s informal request and Parents’ advocate’s informal email response were accepted in lieu of a more formal filing.

[11]  Parent has two advocates in this matter and the advocate sitting in as “second chair” wrote this email.

[12]  The date of Parents’ filing of their First Set of Interrogatories is unknown.

[13]  The advocate’s allegations involved the District’s attempts to “shut[] down her memory aide”, (recorder) during a Team meeting.  The advocate further alleged that the District’s attempts to obtain technical assistance from the BSEA constituted attempts to make the BSEA complicit, further alluding to a hearing request she intended to file in which District counsel would be named as parties. 

[14] A list of free and low-cost advocacy groups and/or legal assistance was mailed to Parents together with the Notice of Hearing; the same is also posted on the BSEA website. The BSEA does not provide or arrange for legal assistance to parties appearing before it. 

[15]   To the extent that the advocate insinuated that the Hearing Officer and the District’s attorney had engaged in ex-parte communication, the Ruling on October 3, 2025, clarified that no such communication had taken place.

[16]  The Motion was received at 7:29 p.m. on September 26, 2025.

[17]   The advocate again raised allegations previously made that Parent had been denied access to pro-bono counsel;  that the Hearing Officer and district attorneys had engaged in ex-parte communications;  that ADA accommodations had been denied because as “Parent relies on the service dog for physical and emotional support”, access to the dog had been denied, and Parent now sought assurances that the dog would be fully accommodated and treated humanely;  that the Hearing Officer engaged in conduct unbecoming of a Hearing Officer due to repeated attacks, bias and favoritism of attorneys, retaliation against Parents and against protected advocacy, denial of ADA rights, conflicts of interest, self-adjudication, parent intimidation, libelous statements, and procedural violations; independence issues; denied Parents’ right to a public hearing and to live-streaming of the hearing; lacked authority to separate Parent from the advocate.  As a result of the aforementioned allegations Parents’ advocate refused to negotiate or participate in meetings with BSEA staff unless compelled by law, and she further sought assurances as to Parents’ ability to attend the hearing “without fear of intimidation, retaliation, or denial of rights”, including “ADA accommodations, elder service dog access, and participation in a safe, fair, and non-retaliatory environment” so that Parents could feel safe.  As a point of clarification, it is not Parents but the advocate who seeks accommodations for her elder service dog.  The advocate’s submissions appear to intertwine allegations involving parents with those involving her.

[18]   Regarding the advocate’s request for a “live-stream” of the hearing, the request was denied as nothing in the IDEA guarantees a right to such format.

[19]   Parents’ advocate had access to her service animal at her remote location during the Hearing. Presumably the dog laid down or slept during the proceeding as at one point the advocate became concerned that his loud snoring could disturb the process, which it did not.  Breaks were afforded at reasonable intervals as they would be in any other hearing.  No additional breaks were requested by the advocate specifically to attend to the needs of the service dog. 

[20]   “To measure Student’s reading achievement, he was administered the WIAT-IV subtests of Reading Comprehension, Word Reading, Pseudoword Decoding, and Orthographic Fluency.  When [Student] was required to read aloud words presented to him, he performed within the low average range (Word Reading = 89).  His accuracy when reading in context fell below age level expectations (GORT-V; Accuracy = 5.” (SE-6A).

[21]   Ms. McGrath was unable to attend the Hearing due to a medical excuse related to pregnancy (Harriman, Stokowski).

[22]   Ms. Stokowski further noted the academic testing performed by Wachusett, specifically the WIAT-4, the Test of Early Mathematic Ability (TEMA-3) and the Early Test of Reading ability (SE-3; Stokowski).

[23]  While Student demonstrated average phonological deletion, phonological blending, sentence memory and auditory comprehension skills; low average word discrimination and word memory skills; and, he scored below average in number memory forward and in processing overall directions skills (Id.).  Index scores between 85 and 115 are considered to be within the average range.  Student’s scores were as follows: phonological processing index 90, auditory memory index 87, listening comprehension index 95, overall standard score 90 (SE-2).

[24] Ms. Kenyon no longer works at Dudley-Charlton.

[25]   20 USC 1400 et seq.

[26]   MGL c. 71B.

[27] Despite being on notice since August 8, 2025, of the District’s intention to proceed to Hearing on the limited issue before me, Parents presented no evidence at Hearing.