1. Home
  2. Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) Decisions
  3. In Re: Student v. Pembroke Public Schools BSEA# 25-10070
Searching...

Advanced Search +

In Re: Student v. Pembroke Public Schools BSEA# 25-10070

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS

SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS

In Re: Student v. Pembroke Public Schools

BSEA# 25-10070

DECISION

This decision is issued pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 USC § 1400 et seq.), 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.  

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

Parent filed a Hearing Request on March 19, 2025, and the Hearing was initially scheduled for April 23, 2025.  On April 7, 2025, a joint request to postpone the Hearing was allowed for good cause, and the Hearing was scheduled for July 15 and 16, 2025.  On June 20, 2025, Parent filed an Amended Hearing Request, and the Hearing was re-scheduled for July 23, 2025.  On July 8, 2025, the Parties’ joint request to postpone the Hearing was allowed for good cause, and the Hearing was scheduled for October 15 and 16, 2025.  On October 8, 2025, the case was administratively re-assigned from Hearing Officer Rosa Figueroa to the undersigned.  The Hearing proceeded via Zoom (by agreement of the parties) on October 15, 2025.  Pembroke Public Schools (Pembroke or the District) filed its closing argument on November 12, 2025.  Parent filed her closing argument on November 13, 2025.  There was no objection to the late filing of Parent’s closing argument, and the record closed on November 13, 2025.  

Those present for all or part of the hearing were:

Parent Parent’s family member 1[1] Parent’s family member 2 Parent’s family member 3 Parent’s family member 4 Parent’s family member 5 
Catherine Ullman Shade, Ph.D.Director of Education, Cardiac Neurodevelopmental Program, Boston Children’s Hospital
Kelli Kennedy, M.D.Student’s primary care doctor
Orlando CruzAttorney for Parent/Student

Ashely Cross                                         Principal, Hobomock Elementary School

Jessica DeLorenzo                              Director of Special Education, Pembroke Public Schools

Elisabeth Chee                                      Attorney, Pembroke Public Schools

Ellen Muir                                            Court Reporter

Catherine Putney-Yaceshyn                Hearing Officer           

The official record of this hearing consists of: Parent’s exhibits marked P-1 through P-15, P17 through P-41, P-43, and P-44[2]; Pembroke Public Schools’ exhibits marked S-1 through S-23; and approximately 4 hours of recorded oral testimony.  

ISSUES

  1. Whether Pembroke violated its child-find obligations and denied Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) from June 20, 2023 forward.
  2. Whether the services and placement offered by Pembroke in the Individualized Education Program (IEP) from November 2024 to November 2025 were reasonably calculated to offer Student a FAPE in the least restrictive environment.
  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 extended school services (ESY) in 2025.
  5. Whether Student is entitled to transportation from the private placement to Pembroke to receive special education services.
  6. Whether Student is entitled to compensatory education services in reading and math based on proposed services she did not receive from November 2024 to date.
  7. Whether Parent is entitled to reimbursement for privately incurred educational expenses related to Student’s attendance at the Sacred Heart School.
  8. Whether commencing in 2023, the District violated Parent’s procedural due process rights including denial of meaningful participation at IEP meetings, and failing to provide clear and timely communications regarding her rights, and the District’s obligations to privately placed students.

SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

  1. Student (hereafter, “Student”) is eight-years-old and has been privately placed by her parents at a parochial school.  She was initially found eligible for a 504 Plan by Pembroke which was proposed on or around September 19, 2022, in Student’s Kindergarten year. The 504 Plan stated that during the summer of 2022 Student received a heart transplant and was thus deemed to have a “health disability due to the care that she requires that is consistent with her recent surgery.”  Student was noted to be at risk for infection following her recent surgery, and several accommodations were proposed to help her access grade-level content.  The accommodations were meant to protect Student in light of her weakened immune system and consisted of providing Parents with notification when the school was aware of transmissible illnesses in the classroom and limiting Student’s exposure to food or materials that may increase her risk of infection.  (S-1)  During that year, Student rode on the regular school bus or was transported by family members. (Mother)
  1. Student began the K-1 year at St. Agatha School in Milton, Massachusetts, but, after approximately four months went into heart failure resulting in a seven-month hospital stay and ultimately a heart transplant in June 2022.  The following school year, she enrolled at Hobomock Elementary School (hereafter, Hobomock) within the Pembroke Public Schools (hereafter, Pembroke).  Mother testified that, around October 2022, she became concerned about Student’s academic performance.  She further stated Student cried every day and asked not to go to school.  She recounted a time in December 2022 when Student cut her eyelashes after having a negative encounter with a classmate. In January 2023, Mother wrote to Student’s teacher raising concern about Student’s decoding.  The teacher said Student was doing very well and that her DIBELS scores showed she was in the advanced range.  As the year progressed, Mother was concerned that Student was forgetting her letters.  (Mother)  
  1. On May 9, 2023, Mother emailed the school principal asking about ESY services for Student.  The principal informed Mother that ESY services were only provided to students who were eligible for special education services. (P-4)  Mother emailed Student’s teacher on June 2, 2023, asking if she knew anything about peer interactions in which Student reported she felt “picked on.”  The teacher responded that Student had not mentioned it to her and asked Mother to elaborate.  (P-3, pg. 3) Mother testified that Pembroke failed her daughter by not supporting her academically or emotionally.  Student’s teacher kept telling Mother that Student was doing well, but Mother believed the data showed otherwise.  At the end of the 20222023 school year, Mother began looking at other schools for Student.  She decided to enroll Student at Sacred Heart Elementary School, (hereafter, Sacred Heart) a parochial school in Weymouth, Massachusetts.  The school informed her that they used Orton-Gillingham, and their school nurse was a former cardiology nurse.  Student began attending this school at the beginning of the 2023-2024 school year.  Student loved going to school and thrived socially, however Mother noticed Student was still having some academic difficulties.  She spoke to her teacher who suggested that Student get tested for special education eligibility.  (Mother)
  1. On September 4, 2023, Andrea DePaul, the school nurse at Hobomock emailed Mother and stated that she was concerned that Student had been absent for three days and was still registered at the school.  Mother responded by stating that she had been displeased with the leadership at the school and her daughter’s academic growth, and Student would not be returning to Pembroke. (P-8)
  1. On September 25, 2023, in response to an email from Michael Murphy, Hobomock’s Principal, asking where Student would be attending school, Mother provided the name of the school and its address.  (S-9)
  1. On or around March 19, 2024, Pembroke proposed an initial evaluation of Student in the academic and cognitive areas.  Parent signed consent on March 19, 2024 and checked the box requesting access to summaries of assessment reports at least two days prior to the Team meeting.  (S-2, P-10) 
  1. In May 2024 [3] , Stephanie Toolin, M.Ed., a Pembroke special education teacher, conducted an academic evaluation of Student utilizing the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-Fourth edition (WIAT-4).  Student’s reading composite (SS 85), word reading (SS 88), and reading comprehension (SS 87) scores were in the low average range, and her written expression composite (SS 101), spelling (SS 98), alphabet writing fluency (SS 104), mathematics composite (SS 95), math problem solving (SS 92),  and numerical operations (SS 99) score was in the average range.  Her total achievement composite was in the average range (SS 92).  In the basic reading composite, Student scored in the average range (SS 96).  She scored in the average range in pseudoword decoding (SS 105) and phonemic proficiency (100 SS) and in the low average range in word reading (SS 88); in the average range in the decoding composite (SS 95) and in pseudoword decoding (SS 105); in the low average range in word reading (SS 88); in the low average range in reading fluency (SS 84) and oral reading fluency (SS 82), and in the average range in orthographic fluency (SS 91).  On the math fluency composite, Student scored in the average range in all subtests with a composite SS of 97, a SS of 96 in math fluency-addition, and a SS of 98 in math fluency- subtraction.  On the Phonological processing composite, she received a SS of 101 (average range) and scored in the average range in the pseudoword Decoding (SS 105) and Phonemic proficiency (SS 100) sub-tests.  On the Orthographic Processing composite, Student scored SS 94 (average), and in the average range on the sub-tests: Orthographic Fluency (SS 91) and Spelling (SS 98).  (S-3)
  1. Based on her testing, Ms. Toolin suggested that Student would benefit from some accommodations including being provided graphic organizers, reference sheets, manipulatives, number lines, and number grids, as needed.  She further recommended regular check-ins with independent assignments and the modeling of new skills.  She also recommended that directions be reviewed with Student before beginning tasks.  (S-3)
  1. Michael Lisi school psychologist at Pembroke, conducted a psychological assessment of Student on May 2, 2024.  He utilized the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fifth Edition, interviewed Student, and reviewed her file.  Mr. Lisi reported Student’s WISC V scores as follows: Verbal Comprehension: SS 113 (high average); Visual-Spatial: SS 97 (average); Fluid Reasoning: SS 121 (very high); Working Memory: SS 103 (average); Processing Speed:  SS 103 (average); and Full Scale IQ: SS 117 (high average).  Student’s subtest scores in Verbal Comprehension were as follows: Similarities: SS 13 (above average), Vocabulary SS 12 (average).  Her Visual Spatial subtest scores were reported as Block design SS 12 (average) and Visual Puzzles SS 7 (below average).  In the area of Fluid Reasoning, Student scored SS 15 on Matrix Reasoning (above average) and SS 12 on Figure Weights (average) subtests.  In the area of Working Memory, Student scored SS 8 (average) on the Digit Span subtest and SS 13 (above average) on the Picture Span sub-test.  Her Processing Speed subtest scores were: Coding SS 14 (above average) and Symbol Search SS 7 (below average).  Mr. Lissi recommended some accommodations to assist Student in the classroom.  (S-4)
  1. Student’s first grade teacher at Sacred Heart completed an Educational Assessment A and B on or around April 2, 2024.  The teacher noted that Student received MultiTiered System of Support (MTSS) for reading 3 x 20 minutes and for math 1 x 20; and that Student was making progress in the general curriculum, but not at the same level as her peers.  The teacher checked the box indicating that Student’s communication skills seem age appropriate and that Student’s memory appears to adversely affect learning.  (S-5)
  2. On May 17, 2024, Pembroke sent Mother an email stating that the evaluation reports were available for pickup at the front desk.  Mother responded to the email late in the afternoon, stating that she would be working and unable to pick up the reports and noted that she may need to reschedule the meeting if she was unable to digest the information during the meeting.  (P-12)  Further, Ashley Cross[4] sent Mother an email on May 19, 2024 offering to send her electronic copies of the reports.  Mother did not see the email until the next day.  (Mother)
  1. The Team, including Mother, staff from Pembroke, and staff from Sacred Heart, convened on May 20, 2024 for an initial eligibility determination.  Mother raised concerns that Student’s time out of school due to her medical condition would impact her progress, and she was concerned Student was not making adequate progress in math.  She was also concerned that Student’s Kindergarten teacher at Pembroke did not raise concerns about Student’s academics, but her private school first-grade teacher noted that Student was not at grade level when she began attending.  Student’s first grade teacher noted that on the math MAPP testing Student was at the 82nd percentile for growth, and she did well learning math when using manipulatives and receiving redirection and prompting to stay on task.  When she was not able to use manipulatives, Student did not do as well.  She noted Student requires wait time and redirection for attention and extra time to complete independent tasks.  Student understands new concepts, but benefits from repetition and prompting for attention-related difficulties.  The Team reviewed Mr. Lisi’s and Ms. Toolin’s assessments.  Mother was concerned that Student did not seem to be performing as well in the classroom as on testing.  She reiterated that she did not think Student was making effective progress in math, but did think she was in ELA.  Ms. Toolin reviewed Student’s average range scores in math on the WIAT, and the Team deemed that to be evidence of effective progress.  (S-7, P-14)  Ms. Cross observed that Student had scored in the low average to average range in all areas that were assessed and had a solid academic profile.  (Cross) The Team determined that although Student presented with a health disability, she was not eligible for special education.  Student was receiving some tier 2 support that addressed some of the weaker areas about which her family was concerned.  She seemed to be making progress in accessing the general education curriculum with the aforementioned supports.  (Cross)  The Team discussed additional evaluations/rating scales to assess attention, as that had not been included in Mother’s initial areas of concern.  Pembroke agreed to send consent for assessments of Student’s attention.  (S-7)  Parent sent a follow up email to Ms. Cross stating she would like Student to have a health assessment. She also raised further concerns about Student’s inattentiveness.  (P-13)
  1. On May 22, 2024 Pembroke sent Parent an Evaluation Consent Form proposing to conduct a health assessment and administer attention rating scales.  Mother signed the consent on May 22, 2024.  (S-8)
  1. On September 11, 2024, Mr. Lisi completed a psychological assessment consisting of the Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning, third edition (WRAML 3) attention/concentration index; the Conners 3 Parent scales; a classroom observation; and a file review.  During the classroom observation, Mr. Lisi noted that Student demonstrated grade-appropriate attention to the morning tasks.  Student’s teacher shared that Student’s work habits, including attention to task, resembled that of her peers and were not a concern at the start of school. On the WRAML 3 attention/concentration index, Student scored in the high average range with an index score of 116 and in the 86th percentile.  Mr. Lisi concluded that Student’s results did not indicate problematic levels of inattention.  He recommended classroom accommodations including continued check-ins for classroom tasks and teaching, modeling, and reinforcing calming and problem-solving strategies.  (S-9)
  1. Andrea DePaul, the school nurse, was unable to complete the proposed health assessment because she did not have the information she needed to do so available to her.  All of Student’s medical records and information had been transferred to her current private school.  Ms. DePaul emailed Parent on September 6, 2024, and left her a voicemail on September 12, 2024.  Parent returned her call on September 13, 2024, and Ms. DePaul asked for updated medical information.  Mother was unable to answer Ms. DePaul’s medical questions at that time and stated she would try to email current medical information before the Team meeting but this did not occur.  (S-10)
  1. Student’s second grade teacher at Sacred Heart completed an Educational Assessment Part A and Part B.  She noted that Student was making progress in the general curriculum, and her progress has been similar to her peers.  She stated that Student is a hard worker who participates in class discussions.  Additionally, she noted Student answers questions appropriately and interacts with peers.  She needs some reminders to stay on task.  Student seemed to participate appropriately in classroom activities and had age-appropriate communication skills.  Her memory did not appear to adversely affect learning, and her interpersonal skills with groups, peers, and adults were appropriate.  (S-12)
  1. Kelli Kennedy, M.D., Student’s primary care physician, wrote a letter addressed “To Whom it May Concern” dated September 25, 2025.  She noted that Student had received a heart transplant two years prior and has recovered remarkably well.  She explained that her ongoing health condition affects her ability to achieve expected progress academically and will for the indefinite future.  Because Student takes immune suppressive medication, she needs to stay home from school when there are known illnesses in the classroom.  Further, she experiences more frequent illness resulting in more than expected missed school days.  Her medications cause some brain fog, which may require additional support.  She opined that Student is significantly below grade level and cannot master skills despite specialized instruction being provided.  Dr. Kennedy noted her concern “for Developmental Dyslexia.”  She recommended that a full “neuropsychiatric evaluation” be conducted.  (S-13, P-27)
  1. Paul Estero, M.D., Ph.D., Associate Cardiologist at Boston Children’s Hospital, wrote a letter to Jessica DeLorenzo, Pembroke’s Director of Special Education, dated September 25, 2024 regarding Student.  He stated that “children with heart disease who have undergone heart transplant surgery often experience challenges in many developmental areas.” He noted that such children often have difficulty with tasks such as learning, inattention, executive functioning, and social relationships.  Further he noted potential difficulty with language, motor skills, social skills, behavior, learning and attention.  Given the strong correlation between heart disease/transplant and learning challenges, he requested that Pembroke reconsider its decision regarding Student’s eligibility for an IEP.  (S-14, P-27) 
  2. The Team was scheduled to convene on September 24, 2024, but the meeting was postponed until October 23, 2024.  Personnel from both Pembroke and Sacred Heart attended the meeting, along with Mother.  Mother expressed concern about inattention, the need for improvement in reading comprehension, and regression.  The Team determined that Student was eligible for special education under the category of health impairment.   Student’s teacher noted some challenges in reading and strengths in writing, and math. The Team identified goal areas in reading decoding and comprehension, math word problems/language, and fluency with addition, subtraction, and multiplication.   (S-15)  The meeting was lengthy and had to be continued to a later date (November 13, 2024) to draft the goals due to the parochial school staff members’ schedules.  Mother recalled informing the Team about the recommendations of Dr. Ullman Shade[5], the Director of Education of the Cardiac Neurodevelopmental Program at Boston Children’s Hospital.  (Mother) 
  1. On November 19, 2024, Pembroke sent an IEP/Amendment to Parent.  The N1 notes that the Team met on both 10/23/24 and 11/13/24 to develop the IEP and found Student eligible for an IEP.  The Team considered Student’s health, educational, and cognitive evaluations in making its determination.  (S-15)
  1. The proposed IEP for the period from October 23, 2024 to October 22, 2025 contains goals in reading and mathematics.  A-Grid services were not proposed.  The B grid includes reading with the special education teacher or paraprofessional 5 x 30 minutes per cycle and mathematics with the special education teacher/paraprofessional 3 x 30 minutes per cycle.  The C Grid proposes reading with the special education teacher 3 x 30 minutes per cycle and mathematics with the special education teacher 3 x 30 minutes per cycle.  The IEP indicates that transportation will be provided in the same manner as it would be for students without disabilities.  Mother partially rejected the IEP on December 20, 2024.  Specifically, Mother rejected the proposed 3×30 pull out services in reading and 3×30 minutes in math pull out because she believed Student required more services to make effective progress.  Further, Mother rejected the placement in the full inclusion program.  (S-16)
  1. Mother testified that the IEP would have required her daughter to travel between her private school in Weymouth and her elementary school in Pembroke twice per day to receive her services.  She was concerned that given Student’s health issues, the travel would mean extra exposure to germs and physical distress.  She further stated that Pembroke informed her that it was not their responsibility to provide Student with transportation because she was privately placed at her school (Mother, P-33, P-34)
  1. Ms. Cross testified that Pembroke provides services to private school and home- schooled students regularly.  Those services are offered during the time that the service providers have a group that would match the student’s needs in terms of grade level, abilities, and peer cohorts.  Based on those factors, Pembroke offers a drop-in model for families to access, and this was the service delivery model offered to Student.  She noted that Student has not accessed the drop-in services.  (Cross)
  1. Mother wrote an undated letter regarding the rejected portions of Student’s IEP which she attached to the partially accepted IEP. With respect to the services Pembroke offered at Hobomock, Mother stated Student could not access them because the travel time between Sacred Heart and Hobomock would reduce her learning time and disrupt her consistent learning environment.  Further, she stated that due to Student’s compromised immune system it would be dangerous to expose her to two different schools each day.  She further objected to the IEP not containing a plan for home delivery of services when Student is well enough to learn, but too fragile to attend in person.  Additionally, Mother argued that the proposed IEP contained insufficient service hours.  She noted that Dr. Ullman Shade from Boston Children’s Hospital recommended pull-out reading services for 5×60 minutes per week and pullout math for 5×30 minutes per week.  Mother believed the IEP services were inadequate for Student.  She further stated Student has a history of regression which she believed required that she receive more intensive supports.  Additionally, Mother objected that transportation services were not addressed during the reconvened IEP meeting.  (S-16) 
  1. The Team reconvened to discuss Mother’s rejections on January 13, 2025.  (S-17).  Mother asked about the services being provided virtually or at a neutral location.  She asked about a different schedule for services than Pembroke had proposed.  Pembroke refused both requests.  (Mother)  Ms. Cross testified that the schedule proposed by Pembroke was based on the availability of the Pembroke providers and the appropriate peer cohort.  With respect to the number of hours proposed for services, Mother verbally informed the Team of Dr. Ullman Shade’s recommendations, but she did not provide a formal report or evaluation for the Team to consider.  Dr. Ullman Shade was not at the meeting, and the Team did not have a signed release to speak to her nor any opportunity to reach out to her.  With respect to Mother’s request for ESY, the Team did not have any evidence of substantial regression.  There was no evidence that Student was having difficulty after breaks away from school for vacations or absence.  (Cross)
  1. On June 11, 2025 the Team reconvened to further review Parent’s request for ESY services.  On June 13, 2025, Pembroke issued a Notice of District Refusal to Act indicating its refusal to provide ESY services for Student.  It cited the lack of any supporting data showing that Student had demonstrated substantial regression in the past.  Parent was informed that she could submit any additional data points for the Team to consider.  (S-18)
  1. Since being found eligible for special education services, Student has not received any special education services from Pembroke.  (Mother)
  1. Dr. Kennedy sees Student yearly for an exam and typically a few times per year for sicknesses.  She testified that Student’s heart is now functioning normally, but she still has to catch up on growth.  Her condition is complicated by the multiple medications that are needed to support her heart transplant.  She must remain immunosuppressed so that her body does not reject her heart.  She is particularly prone to routine illnesses such as colds, coughs, and stomach bugs.  She can have brain fog, be tired, and need support to maintain focus and attention.  Student is considered medically fragile.  Her health may cause her to miss more days of school than the average child.  If there is a time where there are multiple members of her class who have the flu, strep throat, or Covid, it is advisable for Student to remain at home to avoid exposure to the illnesses.  Dr. Kennedy stated that requiring Student to travel midday between schools would increase her fatigue.  (Kennedy). Dr. Kennedy has not attended any of Student’s IEP meetings or shared the recommendations she made during the hearing other than those that are in her September 2024 letter.  She does not recall ever filling out a home hospital tutoring form for Student.  (Kennedy)
  1. Dr. Catherine Ullman Shade, Director of Education of the Cardiac Neurodevelopmental Program at Boston Children’s Hospital, has a Ph.D. in child development, specializing in language and literacy, and an M.Ed. in language and literacy.  She has been working with medically complex children with complex congenital heart disease for nine years. She described common deficits that she sees in children with heart disease and stated that Student has performed better than expected in many ways, given her medical history.  She noted that in general, children with heart disease tend to have widespread disruption to the brain, impacting visual spatial skill which can lead to substantial difficulties in math.  She also noted that such children often have challenges with attention, executive functioning, focus, selfregulation, and can be prone to anxiety and depression.  Dr. Ullman Shade first met mother in November 2024 when Mother scheduled a consultation with her.  She reviewed Student’s medical record and information provided by Mother including her prior academic and psychological testing.  She spoke with Mother about her concerns and Student’s proposed IEP.  She never met Student or conducted any testing of her.  She concluded that Student is extremely bright.  She would have expected to see significant deficits in how she thinks, learns, and understands, but did not.  She noted a slight weakness in her visual spatial skills and that Student was not performing as well as she would hope in some aspects of reading, specifically rate and fluency.  She opined that student was showing signs of a naming speed-based or fluency-based reading disability.  She stated that given Student’s cognitive potential she would expect her to be achieving at least at grade level, but she was not.  She recommended that Student receive daily literacy and math intervention five times per week for thirty minutes per session.  She stated that was a very conservative recommendation and she stated that “most of the literature on reading intervention” recommends 5 x 70 or 5 x 90 minutes of service, but schools are resistant to providing that.  She noted that Student is a bright kid, and the evidence of her reading disability one year ago suggested that it was “fairly mild.”  (Ullman Shade)

Dr. Ullman Shade testified that Student remains on immunosuppressant drugs and remains vulnerable to becoming fatigued and to illness.  Her special education services must be scheduled at a time that works for her and when she is alert, and not exhausted.  Her transportation time should be minimized, and the school should work to minimize her need to be transported back and forth.  Dr. Ullman Shade did not provide a report of her findings to Pembroke.  She provided a consultation, which is less formal than an evaluation.  Her report is in Student’s medical record.  (Ullman Shade)

Dr. Ullman Shade did not attend any of Student’s IEP meetings.  She never met Student or did any testing of her.  She has never observed Student in a classroom.  Neither Student’s medical record nor her prior testing included a diagnosis of a specific learning disability.  Dr. Ullman Shade’s impression of the testing was that Student had what looked like a developmental dyslexia of a naming speed subtype. 

(Ullman Shade)

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Student is an individual with a disability, falling within the purview of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)[6] and the state special education statute[7].  As such, she is entitled to a FAPE.  Neither her status nor her entitlement is in dispute.  The Parties, however, disagree on a number of issues which will be addressed below.

a. Legal Standards

        i. Eligibility for Special Education

The right to a FAPE for all students with a disability is guaranteed by both federal and state law through the IDEA, M.G.L. c. 71B, and their corresponding regulations[8]. If a student is found eligible to receive special education, the Team must then develop an IEP setting forth the special education and related services that meet the special education needs of the student[9]. An IEP is a “a snapshot, not a retrospective. In striving for ‘appropriateness,’ an IEP must take into account what was and was not objectively reasonable when the

snapshot was taken, that is, at the time the IEP was promulgated”10. The IDEA defines a “child with a disability” as a student having specifically identified disabilities “who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services”. 20 USC 1401(3)(A) and (B)11 (emphasis added). “Special education” is defined as “specially designed instruction[10], at no cost to the parents, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability, … [inclusive of] speech-language pathology services, or any other related service, if the service is considered special education rather than a related service under State standards”[11]. 

Similarly, Massachusetts defines a “school age child with a disability” as a child “… who, because of [specifically identified disabilities] … is unable to progress effectively in regular education and requires special education services, including … only a related service … [if they] are required to ensure access of the child with a disability to the general education curriculum[12][13]. The regulations define “eligible student” as “… a person aged three through

21 … who has been determined by a Team to have a disability(ies), and as a consequence is unable to progress effectively in the general education program without specially designed instruction or is unable to access the general curriculum without a related service”. 603 CMR 28.02(9) (emphasis added). To  “[p]rogress effectively in the general education program” means to make documented growth in the acquisition of knowledge and skills, including social/emotional development, within the general education program, with or without accommodations, according to chronological age and developmental expectations, the individual educational potential of the student, and the learning standards set forth in the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks and the curriculum of the district15.

Thus, both federal and state law utilize a two-pronged approach in determining a student’s eligibility for special education[14]. The first prong involves identifying whether the

  1. Roland M. v. Concord School Committee, 910 F.2d 983, 992 (1st Cir. 1990).
  2. The identified disabilities in the IDEA include “other health impairments” and for students ages 3 through 9, “developmental delays defined by the state.”

student has one or more of the disabilities enumerated in the law[15]. The second prong involves determining if, by reason of that disability, the child is unable to progress effectively in the general education program (i.e., make documented growth in the acquisition of knowledge and skills, including social/emotional development, with or without accommodations) without specially designed instruction or is unable to access the general curriculum without a related service[16].

“[I]n determining eligibility, the school district must thoroughly evaluate and provide a narrative description of the student’s educational and developmental potential”[17]. In Massachusetts, the evaluation is to be conducted within 30 school days of receiving parental consent, by “appropriately credentialed and trained specialists” and adapted to the age of the student[18]. Initial evaluation assessments must include, “an assessment in all areas related to the suspected disability” and an “educational assessment by a representative of the school district”[19].  Just as the appropriateness of an IEP is not to be viewed in hindsight, so too must a review of a Team’s eligibility determination be made by looking at the information available to the Team at the time of its determination.

        ii. Burden of Persuasion

The burden of persuasion in an administrative hearing is placed upon the party seeking relief.   Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 126 S. Ct. 528, 534, 537 (2005)  In this case, Parent is the party seeking relief, and as such has the burden of persuading the Hearing Officer of her position by a preponderance of the evidence.

b. Application of Legal Standards:

Issue 1: Whether Pembroke violated its child-find obligations and denied Student a FAPE from June 20, 2023 forward.

The child find requirement in the IDEA requires that “[a]ll children with disabilities residing in the State, including children with disabilities attending private schools, regardless of the severity of their disabilities, and who are in need of special education and related services, are identified, located, and evaluated and a practical method is developed and implemented to determine which children with disabilities are currently receiving needed special education and related services.” 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(3)(A).  Similarly, Massachusetts requires that “the school committee of every city, town or school district shall identify the school age children residing therein who have a disability, as defined in section 2, diagnose and evaluate the needs of such children, propose a special education program to meet those needs, provide or arrange for the provision of such special education program, maintain a record of such identification, diagnosis, proposal and program actually provided and make such reports as the department may require.” See M.G.L. ch. 71B § 3. 

There is no evidence in the record to support Parent’s contention that Pembroke violated child find with respect to Student.  Parent has not demonstrated that Pembroke should have evaluated Student during her Kindergarten year when she was attending school in Pembroke.  Mother testified that she raised a concern about Student’s decoding skills to Student’s teacher, but Student’s teacher was not concerned about Student’s skills.  Further, Mother did not request an evaluation at that time.  Similarly, Mother testified that she was concerned by some negative peer interactions but did not provide sufficient information that would trigger Pembroke to suggest an evaluation.  Parent did not offer any expert testimony to support her contention that Student should have been identified as a student requiring special education during her Kindergarten year in Pembroke.  Although Parent’s views are extremely important for purposes of IEP Team consideration and decision making, Parent is not an expert, and her views cannot substitute for an expert opinion.  (In Re: Carlia, BSEA #08-7930, 15 MSER 403 (Crane, 2009))

The evidence shows that Parent requested an evaluation during Student’s first grade year when Student was attending Sacred Heart.  Upon receipt of Parent’s request for evaluation, Pembroke sent a consent form proposing to evaluate Student in the areas Parent had identified as her areas of concern.  Student was evaluated, and the Team convened and reviewed the evaluations.  Although Parent did not agree with the Team’s determination at that time that Student was ineligible for special education, she did not meet her burden of showing that Pembroke violated its Child Find obligations with respect to the first series of evaluations, as the only evidence Parent presented to support her position that Student should have been found eligible at this Team meeting was her own opinions and comments.  While Parent’s input cannot be ignored and must be taken into consideration by the Team it is one of many pieces of information that a Team must consider in determining eligibility.  Here, the Team had other additional information that it considered at its May 2024 meeting to support its finding of ineligibility, including the evaluation results of Ms. Toolin, Mr. Lisi and Student’s first-grade Sacred Heart teacher’s report on the Educational Assessment A and B.  Additionally, Student’s Sacred Heart teacher advised that Student’s MAPP test scores in Math showed growth in the 82nd percentile and that she did well in math, the academic area Parent was concerned with, with accommodations including use of manipulatives, redirection and prompting to stay on task, wait time, redirection for attention and extra time to complete independent tasks.  After the finding of no eligibility, Parent raised additional concerns in the areas of attention and health, which were consistent with some of Student’s first-grade teacher reports first raised at the May 2024 Team meeting.  As a result, Pembroke conducted additional assessments, the Team convened to review them, and Student was found eligible for special education.  As this second team meeting resulted in a finding of eligibility, Parent has not met her burden of showing a child find violation with respect to the second evaluation either.   

Issue 2: Whether the services and placement offered by Pembroke in the IEP from November 2024 to November 2025 were reasonably calculated to offer Student a FAPE in the least restrictive environment (LRE).

Parent claims that the IEP proposed by Pembroke was not reasonably calculated to provide Student with a FAPE in the LRE.  She relied on her own testimony and the testimony of Dr. Ulmann Shade to support her position.  However, I did not find Dr. Ulmann Shade’s testimony persuasive as to what Student requires to receive a FAPE.  Most of Dr. Ulmann Shade’s testimony was about the needs of students with congenital heart disease in general, not regarding Student’s needs specifically.  Further, after explaining the academic difficulties that students with congenital heart disease tend to have, Dr. Ulmann Shade agreed that Student has performed better than would be expected for a child with her medical history.  She had little direct knowledge of Student, as she never met her, conducted any testing of her, or observed her in a classroom setting.  Rather, Dr. Ulmann Shade relied on information gleaned from Mother and from Student’s medical record to make recommendations.  She did not write a report of her recommendations and did not attend any Team meetings with respect to Student.  She also never spoke to any staff from Pembroke.  Pembroke only learned of Dr. Ulmann Shade’s recommendations when Mother verbally reported them to the Team at a meeting[20].  I also do not rely on Dr. Ulmann Shade’s testimony that Student presented with a naming speed-based or fluency-based reading disability because she acknowledged that that diagnosis did not appear in any of Student’s records and that she had only based her determination that Student had that diagnosis from her review of Student’s medical and limited educational records.  Nor did Dr. Ulmann Shade testify to having any qualification or expertise that would allow her to make such a diagnosis.  Finally, Dr. Ulmann Shade’s recommendations for service delivery were not made based upon her knowledge of Student and her needs, but rather on “most of the literature on reading intervention.”  She did not specify which literature she relied upon or how it related to Student specifically.  Since Parent did not present any credible evidence to show that the IEP proposed by Pembroke was not reasonably calculated to provide Student with a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment, she did not meet her burden with respect to that issue.

Issue 3: Whether Student is entitled to receive special education services at a publicschool facility or other public or neutral site.

There does not appear to be any dispute as to Student’s entitlement to receive special education services at a public-school facility or other public or neutral site.  Pembroke offered to provide such services at Hobomock during the relevant time period.  Parent did not provide any evidence with respect to this issue.  Therefore, it is not necessary to analyze this issue further.

Issue 4:  Whether Student was entitled to receive ESY services in 2025.

ESY services are provided to students in accordance with both state and federal law.  34

CFR 300.106 provides, “Extended school year services must be provided only if a child’s

IEP Team determines, on an individual basis, in accordance with §§ 300.320 through

300.324, that the services are necessary for the provision of FAPE to the child.”

Massachusetts regulations further explain, “An extended year program may be identified if the student has demonstrated or is likely to demonstrate substantial regression in his or her learning skills and/or substantial difficulty in relearning such skills if an extended program is not provided[21].”  The Team reconvened on June 11, 2025 to discuss Mother’s request for ESY.  The only data presented by Mother for the Team’s consideration was Student’s MAPP Growth assessment results from the 2024-2025 school year.  The scores showed Student had attained high average reading achievement and a high growth percentile, which the Team determined showed growth and progress, not regression.  In the areas of language usage mathematics Student showed low achievement and growth, but there was no data presented from any other source to demonstrate that Student was likely to regress or have substantial difficulty relearning skills if ESY was not provided.  Mother did not present any information from Sacred Heart or from any expert to support her claim that Student had shown or was likely to show substantial regression without ESY either to the Team or at hearing.  Therefore, she has not met her burden with respect to this issue.

Issue 5:  Whether Student is entitled to transportation from the private placement to Pembroke to receive special education services.

Massachusetts state law requires school districts to offer special education and related services to all eligible students who reside in the district, including students who are privately enrolled, regardless of where the student attends school.[22]  The school district shall provide to such students “genuine opportunities to participate in the public school special education program consistent with state constitutional limitations.”[23]  The school district must provide or arrange for the provision of evaluation services and an IEP for any eligible private school student whose parent resides in the jurisdiction of the school district.[24] Moreover, the “school district shall provide or arrange for the provision of the special education described by the student’s IEP provided that school districts shall ensure that special education services funded with state or local funds are provided in a public school facility or other public or neutral site.”[25] Special education provided by the

school district of residence to parentally placed private school students “shall be comparable in quality, scope, and opportunity for participation to that provided to public school students with needs of equal importance.”[26]

DESE’s Administrative Advisory Sped 2018-1(Guidance and Workbook for Calculating and

Providing Proportionate Share Services for Students with Disabilities Enrolled by Their Parents in Private Schools) explains the obligations to parentally placed private school students under both state and federal law.  Federal law requires that the district where the private school is located, rather than the district of residence, fulfill the requirements for child find and proportionate share services.  See 34 CFR 300.131.  The district where a private school is located must meet federal IDEA requirements for all eligible students who are privately enrolled in schools within the geographic boundaries of that district, regardless of where those students live.  34 CFR 300.132-300.139[27].

Massachusetts law requires that the school district where the student resides offers special education and related services to eligible students through IEPs.  603 CMR 28.03 (1)(e).  Further, Massachusetts students have individual entitlements to special education and related services as described on their IEPs. Id.

As further explained by DESE’s Administrative Advisory SPED 2018-1, a district’s obligations under state and federal law will vary depending on where students live and where they are privately enrolled and upon the choices a parent makes regarding evaluation and services for their child.  When a student lives in one district and attends a private school in another district, the two districts will need to coordinate to meet state and federal obligations.  The district in which the student attends private school (here, Weymouth) is responsible for meeting federal proportionate share obligations and the district of residence (Pembroke) is responsible for meeting state special education requirements of free appropriate public education.  See DESE’s Administrative Advisory SPED 2018-1. 

Because there is an overlap of responsibilities under federal and state law, a parent may choose whether to seek an evaluation and services from the district of residence (Pembroke in this case) or the district where their child is privately enrolled (Weymouth). Id. In the instant matter, since Parent has sought services from Pembroke, state law applies to Pembroke’s obligations to Student.

Pembroke points to the Massachusetts regulations regarding transportation to support its position that Student was not entitled to receive transportation to and from Hobomock,

where Pembroke’s services were offered.  It cites to 603 CMR 28.05(5)(a)(2) which states in relevant part  

(5) Transportation. The Team shall determine whether the student requires

transportation because of his or her disability in order to benefit from special education

(a) Regular transportation. If the student does not require transportation as a result of his or her disability, then transportation shall be provided in the same manner as it would be provided for a student without disabilities. In such case, the IEP shall note that the student receives regular transportation, and if the school district provides transportation to similarly situated students without disabilities, the eligible student shall also receive transportation.

2. 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.

(a) Regular transportation. If the student does not require transportation as a result of his or her disability, then transportation shall be provided in the same manner as it would be provided for a student without disabilities. In such case, the IEP shall note that the student receives regular

transportation, and if the school district provides transportation to similarly situated students without disabilities, the eligible student shall also receive transportation.

Pembroke argues that Student does not require transportation as a result of her disability, and in fact accessed regular transportation on the same school bus as non-disabled peers when she attended school in Pembroke.  Her IEP does not require specialized transportation.  Pembroke does not provide transportation services to non-disabled students attending private school.  Further, consistent with the state regulations, Pembroke offers special education and related services to all students, including eligible parentally placed private school students, on-site at its public-school buildings.  Based upon the foregoing, Parent has not met her burden of showing that Student was entitled to transportation between Sacred Heart and Hobomock[28].  

Issue 6:  Whether Student is entitled to compensatory education services in reading and math based on proposed services she did not receive from November 2024 to date.

Compensatory education is an award of educational services that is offered prospectively to compensate for a previously inadequate program.  Reid ex rel. Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 524 (D.C. Cir. 2005). The award of compensatory services is an equitable remedy available to courts and hearing officers, designed to bring the student “to the point he would have been, had he received a FAPE all along.”  R.P. ex rel. C.P. v. Prescott Unified Sch. Dist., 631 F.3d 1117, 11126 (9th Cir. 2011).

Parent has not met her burden of showing that Student is entitled to compensatory services.  She did not submit evidence that Pembroke failed to offer Student services comparable in “quality, scope, and opportunity” to those students in the public school.  See 603 CMR 28.03(1)(e)(4).  As noted in In re: Frontier Regional & Union 38 School District, BSEA #2603439, 2603848 (Nir, 2025), “it is the District’s obligation to offer a homeschooled student a FAPE through an IEP, but if the parents decide to continue to homeschool, the student is entitled to special education services that are “comparable” but not equal to the offer of a FAPE.”   As noted by that Hearing Officer, this same reasoning applies to Student, a parentally placed private school student.  Thus, Pembroke was responsible to offer Student a FAPE, but because Parent chose to keep Student enrolled at Sacred Heart, Student was entitled to “comparable” services.  As Pembroke offered comparable services via the proposed services at Hobomock, no compensatory services are warranted.

Issue 7:  Whether Parent is entitled to reimbursement for privately incurred educational expenses related to Student’s attendance at the Sacred Heart School.

If a school district fails in its obligation to provide FAPE to a student with a disability, parents may enroll their son or daughter in a private school and seek retroactive reimbursement for the cost of the private school.  A BSEA Hearing Officer may require the school district to reimburse the parents for the cost of that enrollment only if the Hearing Officer finds both that (1) the school district had not made FAPE available to the student in a timely manner prior to that enrollment and (2) the private school placement was appropriate.  In such circumstances, the school system will be responsible for the reasonable out-of-pocket costs incident to that private placement, including tuition and transportation[29].

In the instant matter, Parent enrolled Student in Sacred Heart when she was a regular education student.  Thus, there was no obligation for Pembroke to provide her with a free appropriate public education at that time, and Parent would not have any entitlement to reimbursement for the expenses associated with Student’s placement at Sacred Heart.  Student was found eligible for special education on October 23, 2024, and the Team completed drafting an IEP after a reconvened Team meeting on November 13, 2024. 

Parent did not provide Pembroke with any notice that she intended to seek reimbursement for Student’s continued enrollment at Sacred Heart because she believed that the IEP did not provide Student with FAPE and that Sacred Heart did provide a program appropriate to meet Student’s needs.

Even if I had found that the IEP proposed by Pembroke was not reasonably calculated to provide Student with a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment and that Sacred Heart was an appropriate placement for Student, Parent would be precluded from receiving reimbursement for the placement as she never provided any notice to Pembroke of her intent to unilaterally place Student and seek reimbursement from the district.  Specifically, pursuant to 34 CFR 300.148(d):

“The cost of reimbursement described in paragraph (c) of this section may be reduced or denied—

(1) If—

(i) At the most recent IEP Team meeting that the parents attended prior to removal of the child from the public school, the parents did not inform the IEP Team that they were rejecting the placement proposed by the public agency to provide FAPE to their child, including stating their concerns and their intent to enroll their child in a private school at public expense; or (ii) At least ten (10) business days (including any holidays that occur on a business day) prior to the removal of the child from the public school, the parents did not give written notice to the public agency of the information described in paragraph (d)1)(i) of this section.”

In addition to not having provided the requisite notice to Pembroke, Parent did not present sufficient evidence to sustain her burden of showing that Pembroke’s proposed services were inappropriate and that Sacred Heart provided an appropriate placement.  As I found above, there was no credible evidence that Pembroke’s proposed IEP was not reasonably calculated to provide Student with a FAPE in the LRE.  (See discussion of Issue 2 above.)  Parent provided very limited evidence, primarily through her own testimony, about Sacred Heart and did not present any witnesses from the school. There was no evidence regarding the services Student was receiving at Sacred Heart.  Based upon the foregoing, Parent is not entitled to reimbursement for the expenses she incurred in placing Student at Sacred Heart.

Issue 8:  Whether commencing in 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 to privately placed students.

Parent did not meet her burden of proving that Pembroke violated her due process rights.  With respect to her claim that she was denied meaningful participation at Team meetings, the evidence shows that Mother was an active participant in all the meetings.  Although Mother objected to not receiving copies of the evaluation reports conducted by Ms. Toolin and Mr. Lisi before the May 20, 2024, Team meeting, the evidence shows that the reports were available for her to pick up on May 17, 2024, three days before the Team meeting. Mother emailed Pembroke and said she would not be able to pick up the reports due to her work schedule and may have to reschedule the meeting if she required additional time to review the reports.  In response to Mother’s email about being unable to pick up the reports, Ms. Cross went beyond Pembroke’s obligations and offered to provide them electronically prior to the meeting.  Mother did not reschedule the meeting, and the Team meeting notes show that she participated extensively.  Mother’s concerns are recorded in the notes, and her input is summarized.  The evidence does not support her contention that she was not able to meaningfully participate in Team meetings.  

Finally, Parent did not provide evidence to support her claim that she was not provided with timely communications about her parental rights.  The only testimony about notice of procedural safeguards was from Ms. Cross.  She stated that Pembroke provides notice of parental rights to all parents annually, and that parents of eligible students receive the notice even more frequently.  This testimony was unrebutted[30].

Based on the foregoing, I find that:

  1. Pembroke did not violate its Child Find Obligations with respect to Student.
  2. The services and placement offered to Student by Pembroke in the proposed IEP for the period from November 2024 to November 2025 were reasonably calculated to provide Student with a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment.
  3. Student was not entitled to receive ESY services in 2025.
  4. Student was not entitled to transportation between her private school and Pembroke from December 2024 through the current school year.
  5. Student is not entitled to compensatory services for the services that were offered by Pembroke, but Student could not access because transportation was not provided.
  6. Parent is not entitled to reimbursement for the expenses she incurred in placing Student at the Sacred Heart School.
  7. Pembroke did not commit procedural violations including denying Parent meaningful participation at IEP meetings or failing to provide Parent notice of her rights, including her rights as a Parent of a parentally placed private school student.

ORDER

Pembroke shall complete the health assessment of Student and the Team shall convene to review it.

By the Hearing Officer,

/s/ Catherine M. Putney-Yaceshyn

Catherine M. Putney-Yaceshyn

Dated:  December 23, 2025

[1] Parent’s siblings, some of whom have the same last name as Parent are identified as “Parent’s sibling” to avoid publishing personally identifying information.

[2] P-45 was marked for identification only.  It consisted of documents purporting to be Student’s entire student record which were not organized in any way.  Parent was informed that she could seek to admit any relevant individual pages during the Hearing, but she did not. 

[3] The report does not specify the specific date the evaluation was conducted or when the report was written.  (S-3)

[4] Ms. Cross is the current Principal at Hobomock.  Prior to that she was the Assistant Principal and special education Team chair for four years.  She is licensed in elementary education and moderate disabilities in addition to her principal/assistant principal licensure.  She has a Master’s degree in special education, moderate disabilities.  (Cross)

[5] There was no report from Dr. Ullman Shade in the record.

[6] 20 USC 1400 et seq.

[7] MGL c. 71B.

[8] 20 USC 1400, et seq.; M.G.L. c. 71B; 34 CFR 300.000, et seq.; 603 CMR 28.00 et seq.

[9] 603 CMR 28.02(11); 603 CMR 28.05(3).

[10]  “Specially designed instruction” is defined as “adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible child under this part, the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction— (i) To address the unique needs of the child that result from the child’s disability; and (ii) To ensure access of the child to the general curriculum ….” 34 CFR 300.39(a)(3) (emphasis added).

[11]  20 USC 1401(29); 34 CFR 300.39(a). Massachusetts defines “special education” as “specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of the eligible student or related services necessary to access the general curriculum and shall include the programs and services set forth in state and federal special education law.” 603 CMR 28.02(20).

[12] M.G.L. c. 71B §1. Relevant to this proceeding, the disabilities recognized in the Massachusetts laws and regulations include developmental delay for children ages 3 through 9 (provided supra), and “other health impairment”, including health impairments “due to … [ADD] or [ADHD] …”. 603 CMR 28.02(7)(b) and (i).

[13] CMR 28.02(17).

[14] Mr. I. ex rel. L.I. v. Maine School Admin. Dist. No. 55 , 480 F.3d 1, 13-14 (1st Cir. 2007); In Re: Lynnfield PS,

BSEA # 12-1425, 18 MSER 247 (Berman, 2012); In Re: Agawam PS, BSEA # 08-2564/08-4033, 14 MSER 53

(Byrne, 2008); In Re: New Bedford PS, BSEA # 01-3505, 7 MSER 261 (Crane, 2001); In Re: Berlin-Boylston RSD, BSEA # 00-1711, 6 MSER 247 (Byrne, 2000); In Re: Canton PS, BSEA # 00-2912, 6 MSER 239 (Erlichman, 2000); see In Re: Stoughton PS, BSEA # 99-0807, 5 MSER 1 (Oliver, 1999).

[15] 17 Id.

[16] Id.; see M.G.L. c. 71B §1; 603 CMR 28.02(17).

[17]  603 CMR 28.02(9); see 34 CFR 300.8(a).

[18] 603 CMR 28.05(2).

[19]  603 CMR 28.05(2)(a).

[20]  Mother claims that she reported on these recommendations at the May 2024 meeting, however Pembroke recalls hearing about them at the Team meetings that fall.   

[21] 603 CMR 28.05(4)(d)(1).

[22] M.G.L. c. 71B, § 3; 603 CMR 28.03(1)(e).

[23] 603 CMR 28.03(1)(e)(1).

[24] See 603 CMR 28.03(1)(e)(2).

[25] See 603 CMR 28.03(1)(e)(3).  Moreover, “when services are provided using only federal funds, services may be provided on private school grounds” (emphasis added).  Thus, nothing in the state regulations requires the school district of residence to provide special education services on private school grounds regardless of the funding source for the provision of such services.

[26] See 603 CMR 28.03(1)(e)(4).

[27]  However, under federal law, Parents do not have due process rights to pursue complaints against an LEA that does not meet its responsibilities to parentally placed private school students, other than with regard to pursuing child find (including evaluation and eligibility determination) challenges against such LEA. 34 CFR 300.140

[28]   I note that this analysis is specific to the situation in the instant matter where Student is residing in Pembroke but privately placed in a different geographic district.  

[29] 20 USC 1412 (a)(10)(C)(ii); Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7, 11-13 (1993); Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Dep’t of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 370, 373-74 (1985); Diaz-Fonseca v. Puerto Rico, 451 F.3d 13, 31 (1st Cir. 2006).

[30] I also note that although not raised as an issue by Parent, the health assessment to which Mother consented on May 22, 2024 was never completed.  The record shows that the school nurse sought medical documentation from Mother in September 2024 and when she did not receive it, the assessment was not completed.  Although there was no evidence that the lack of a health assessment resulted in a FAPE denial, it should be completed upon receipt of the required health records, given Student’s health issues.  

Updated on January 3, 2026

Related Documents