COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Student and Winthrop Public Schools
BSEA# 26-04116
RULING ON PARENTS’ OBJECTION TO POTENTIAL DISTRICT EXHIBIT
This matter comes before the Hearing Officer on Parents’ Objection to District Evidence and Request for No Weight (Parents’ Objection) filed with the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) on November 20, 2025[1]. Specifically, Parents seek to restrict an email chain between Winthrop Public Schools (District) and the Problem Resolution System (PRS) of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) (that the District shared with Parents at their request on November 19, 2025) from admission as an exhibit at the Hearing currently scheduled for January 26 and 27, 2026. On November 28, 2025, the District submitted an opposition (District Opposition) and on the same date, Parents replied via a filing entitled “Parent[s’] Response in Opposition”(Parents’ Reply). As neither testimony nor oral argument would advance the Hearing Officer’s understanding of the issues involved, this Ruling is issued without a hearing pursuant to Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals (Hearing Rules)Rule VII(D).
For the reasons articulated below, Parents’ Objection is DENIED.
RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
On October 8, 2025, Parents filed a Hearing Request in the instant matter which was initially scheduled for a Hearing on November 12, 2025 before Hearing Officer Amy Reichbach. On November 3, 2025, the matter was administratively reassigned to the underlying Hearing Officer. The Parties worked diligently to clarify the issues for hearing and resolve the matter, engaging in several pre-hearing Conference Calls resulting in multiple pre-hearing Orders, including a Ruling on Joint Request to Postpone Hearing and Extend Deadline to File Exhibits and Witness Lists. That Ruling, in addition to postponing the Hearing for good cause to November 17 and 18, 2025, confirmed that the issues for Hearing are as follows:
“I. Whether Winthrop denied Student a free appropriate public education by:
- failing to provide qualified staff to provide rules-based reading instruction as included on his IEPs dated 12/18/2024 to 12/17/2025 as proposed to be amended on April 18, 2025 and September 11, 2025;
- failing to implement the recommendations for speech and language services contained in the following independent educational evaluations: a Speech evaluation from February 2025; an “Oral & Written Language Evaluation” dated June 29, 2025; and a “Coordination of Findings” evaluation dated June 20, 2025;
- failing to implement the recommendations for occupational therapy services contained in in the following independent educational evaluations: a Speech evaluation from February 2025; an “Oral & Written Language Evaluation” dated June 29, 2025; and a “Coordination of Findings” evaluation dated June 20, 2025; and/or
- failing to propose and provide Extended School Year Services for speech in the summer of 2025.
II. If the answer to I(a), (b), (c) and/or (d) is yes, what is the appropriate remedy?”
Subsequently, on November 14, 2025, at the joint request of the Parties, the Hearing was further postponed for good cause, until January 26 and 27, 2026, with exhibits and witness lists now scheduled to be filed on January 16, 2026.
The email chain that is the subject of the instant Ruling occurred between the District’s then-attorney and a PRS Program Coordinator from October 21, 2025, to October 28, 2025 and contained the subject line “Qualifications to deliver rule-based reading”. It sought “MA DESE’s position [is] about the qualifications a provider needs to have to deliver a rule-based reading program … to a public school student on an IEP” and inquired “[A]re you able to point me in the right direction and/or talk with me about the issue?” After initially advising that the answer required consultation with a PRS supervisor, the Program Coordinator subsequently responded “The Department does not have guidance about provider qualifications for delivering rule-based reading programs …. to special education students in public schools.”
In Parents’ Objection and Parents’ Reply, Parents seek to exclude this email chain as an exhibit claiming it is irrelevant in that it “does not contain any substantive guidance from [DESE] about licensure, provider qualifications or who may deliver rule-based reading instruction … [and] does not support any change in provider or justify replacing special education services with speech services”. Parents contend the email chain is being used “out of context” to justify alleged changes to Student’s IEP including changing the licensure of the service providers identified in his IEP, with which Parents disagree. According to Parents, they too spoke with PRS about the email chain and were advised that PRS agrees the email chain does not support changes to the provider qualifications identified in Student’s IEP. Rather PRS merely responded to the narrow question the District posited, thus making it an “incomplete” response with respect to the issues for Hearing. Parents also object to the District’s failure to inform PRS that it was asking the question in the context of an active Hearing Request, particularly as PRS is unable to “provide opinions or interpretations that could influence the hearing until the case has concluded”.
In the District Opposition, the District contends that Parents’ Objection is premature, since although it intends to submit the email chain as an exhibit for the proposition that “MA ESE does not have guidance about provider qualifications needed for delivery of rule-based reading instruction … to student with special education needs”, the District has not yet so submitted the email chain, nor are exhibits currently due.
ANALYSIS/CONCLUSIONS
Rule XVI(C) of the Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals provides that although a BSEA Hearing Officer is not bound by the rules of evidence applicable to the courts, except with regard to rules of privilege recognized by law, evidence is admissible “… only if it is the kind of evidence upon which reasonable persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs”[2]. Further, under Rule IX(B) Hearing Officers have the duty to “receive and consider all relevant and reliable evidence”.
It is well established that the BSEA does not have jurisdiction over PRS nor are PRS findings binding on the BSEA[3]. 603 CMR 28.08(2) provides that
“The Department maintains a Problem Resolution System that provides for the investigation of complaints and the enforcement of compliance with 603 CMR 28.00, as well as with other statutes and regulations relating to the provision of publicly funded education. [PRS] can make findings on procedural issues and issues related to implementation of requirements…. Findings and orders issued by the Department on complaints and the Department’s processing of a complaint are not reviewable by the Bureau of Special Education Appeals. Additionally, the pendency of a complaint before the Department does not make the Department a necessary party to actions on related issues pending before the Bureau of Special Education Appeals.”
Although the District is correct that the email chain has yet to be presented as “evidence” in this matter, since it has yet to submit it as an exhibit and exhibits are not presently due, the District’s confirmation that it intends to do so, makes Parents’ Objection ripe for consideration at this time. Parents’ claim that the email chain is both irrelevant and unreliable with regard to any issues for Hearing. However, to reach such a conclusion would require that I undertake a substantive review and analysis of the contents of the email chain at this time. Parents are not questioning the authenticity of the emails or the accuracy of the statements made, rather, their arguments address the weight I should accord to the information contained in the email chain. Thus, a pre-emptive exclusion of the email chain is inappropriate at this stage of the proceedings. Only after completion of a hearing on the merits, during which both Parties will have the opportunity to present other documentation and testimony, cross-examine opposing witnesses, and present arguments, will I be able to determine what, if any, bearing the email chain has on my determination as to Issue I(a).
I note, however, that the email chain will only be one piece of evidence that I consider (potentially with or without according it substantial weight) in my determination of Issue I(a). That Issue is specific to Student and will thus turn on Student’s educational needs and the provisions of his IEP, not merely general statements of licensure requirements or lack thereof. Further, I recognize that there is nothing student-specific about the email chain. Additionally, the BSEA is neither bound by nor authorized to review PRS determinations. Parents, as the moving party in the underlying Hearing Request, bear the burden of production on all issues in this matter[4]. Thus, while it is understandable that they seek to preclude the District from submitting evidence that contradicts their position, the appropriate process for Parents to pursue in addressing the email chain is to present their own testimony and evidence at Hearing as to its relevance, reliability, or lack thereof, with respect to Issue I(a).
CONCLUSION
Parents’ Objection is DENIED. The District shall not be prohibited from presenting the email chain as an exhibit at Hearing, should it choose to do so.
So Ordered by the Hearing Officer,
/s/ Marguerite M. Mitchell
Marguerite M. Mitchell
Dated: December 9, 2025
[1] Although this was sent on November 19, 2025, as it was received after the close of business that day, it is deemed filed on the next business day.
[2] This mirrors the provisions in MGL. c. 30A s 11 for admissibility of evidence.
[3] See In Re: Mass. Dep’t of Elem. And Secondary Educ., BSEA No. 2309949, 29 MSER 10 (Putney-Yaceshyn, 2023); In Re: Brookline Pub. Schs., BSEA No. 2303670, 29 MSER 101 (Figueroa, 2023)
[4] Schaffer v. Weast, 546 US 49, 56-57, 62 (2005) (placing the burden of proof in an administrative hearing on the party seeking relief).