In Re: Student v. Ashland Public Schools BSEA# 26-05771

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS

BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS 

In Re: Student v. Ashland Public Schools

BSEA# 26-05771

CORRECTED[1] RULING ON ASHLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ MOTION TO DISMISS/MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND ASHLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO DISMISS

This matter comes before the Hearing Officer on the Ashland Public Schools’ Motion to Dismiss/Motion for Summary Judgment[2] filed on December 5, 2025 (Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment). In it, Ashland Public Schools (Ashland or the District) asserts that the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) does not have jurisdiction over residency claims for students covered by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) and that the other claims Parent raises are also not within the jurisdiction of the BSEA. In addition, to the extent that the BSEA “believes that a Motion to Dismiss is not the proper vehicle for the arguments, Ashland respectfully requests that the Bureau of Special Education Appeals grant its Motion for Summary Judgment, as there is no remaining issue of material fact to litigate with respect to [Student’s] residency or the validity of the home-hospital form.”

On December 8, 2025, Ashland submitted a decision from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s (DESE) Problem Resolution System (PRS) in further support of its Motion, indicating that PRS found that Student is not a resident of Ashland and that the home-hospital form Parent had submitted was invalid. Ashland requested that the BSEA “provide collateral estoppel to these findings from PRS or at least should give significant weight to the finding of another state agency on the same issues.”[3]

On December 8, 2025, Parent, through Advocate, filed a Rebuttal and then a Revised Rebuttal, stating that “[a]ll evidence shows that [Student] is а resident of Ashland, was properly enrolled, and that her temporary request fог home instruction was medically justified. Any references to prior addresses or temporary online options were misinterpreted by the District. The District’s actions including delays, threats, surveillance, and abrupt withdrawal caused educational harm and violated her legal rights.”

On January 8, 2026, Ashland filed [Ashland’s] Additional Motion To Dismiss

(Supplemental Motion)[4] asserting that the matter must be dismissed because Student is enrolled in TECCA and, therefore, Ashland is not the appropriate local education agency (LEA) from which the Parent may request relief prospectively (together with Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment, the District’s Motions).

Also on January 8, 2026, Parent filed an Opposition tо [Ashland’s] Additional Motion tо Dismiss (Supplemental Opposition), asserting that Ashland’s Supplemental Motion should be denied; that Student is not enrolled in ТЕССА, has not participated in any ТЕССА courses, received instruction, or earned any credit from ТЕССА; that,

“[a]ny administrative enrollment that may have been initiated was not implemented, resulted in no instruction or credit, and has since been discontinued; that Student was an Ashland student during the period relevant to this hearing and that Ashland remains responsible for any denial of a free appropriate public education (FАРЕ), lost instructional time, missed credits, or other harms that occurred while Student was enrolled at Ashland and, as such, claims for retroactive relief are properly brought against Ashland and are fully within the jurisdiction of the BSEA; and that while prospective relief may be pursued against the appropriate LEA in the future, Ashland is not relieved of responsibility for past actions or omissions while Student was an Ashland student.”

Because 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 Bureau of Special Education Appeals Hearing Rule VII(D). 

For the reasons set forth below, the District’s Motions are ALLOWED.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND RELEVANT FACTS:

In this Ruling, I take as true “the allegations of the complaint, as well as such inferences as may be drawn therefrom in [the Parent’s] favor” as I am required to do.[5] These facts are subject to revision in future rulings and Decision.

1. Student is a 12th grade student diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), severe anxiety[6], Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), emotional dysregulation, and a specific learning disability (SLD).  (Parent’s Exhibits 12a through 12f; School Exhibits 5 and 7)

2. Student’s Mother resides in Ashland, Massachusetts. Student’s Advocate is also her grandmother.[7] She resides in Framingham, Massachusetts.  Student often “seeks safety and support at [Advocate’s home]. She is always welcomed there during periods of dysregulation to maintain stability; this arrangement is for support purposes only ….” During the 2021-2022 school year, due to “housing instability,” Advocate had “temporary guardianship” over Student. (Parent’s Exhibits 1 and 10)

3. On August 27, 2025, Student enrolled at Ashland High School after attending Norfolk Agricultural High School for three years. (School Exhibits 1 and 3)

4. According to Advocate, on September 17 and 18, 2025, Student “left [Ashland High School] early due to anxiety. (Hearing Request)

5. On September 19, 2025, Student saw her physician, who provided a Home/Hospital Form to support medically necessary home instruction.” Thereafter Parent, through Advocate, submitted a Physician’s Affirmation of Need for Temporary Home or Hospital Education for Medically Necessary Reasons (Home/Hospital Form) to the Principal of Ashland High School and requested tutoring for Student. The Form indicated that Student was to remain out of school until January 2026 due to anxiety “triggered by social situations.” Student’s address was listed as Framingham, Massachusetts. Advocate clarified that she was Student’s

“assigned educational surrogate and [has] been supporting her educational planning in that role. We are in the process of having а caregiver authorization form notarized and will share that documentation with you asap. Regarding residency, [Student] currently resides within the Ashland district which was provided at the District upon registration.” (Parent’s Exhibit 2; School Exhibits 4 and 5)

6. Following receipt of the Home/Hospital Form, the District attempted to arrange for tutoring services for Student. (School Exhibits 8 and 9)[8]

7. During the fall of 2025, a period covered by her Home/Hospital Form, Student participated in multiple out-of-the-home “part-time jobs and activities, including working at a coffee shop, doing therapeutic dog walking, and going to the gym regularly.” (School Exhibits 8 and 9)

8. On September 29, 2025, the Ashland High School Principal informed Parent that the District would not implement home instruction, stating that the District believed Student should be attending school.[9] (School Exhibit 5)

9. On or about October 1, 2025, the Principal of Ashland High School confirmed that Student would remain actively enrolled in Ashland High School and directed Student to continue accessing coursework through Google Classroom, to communicate with teachers by email, and to rely on school staff to coordinate instruction.  (School Exhibit 5) According to Parent, while Student remained enrolled, the District did not provide consistent access to instruction, assignments, grading, feedback, or educational continuity. (Parent’s Exhibits 5 and 6) [10]

10. On November 7, 2025, the District notified Parent that the

“Ashland [] recently conducted а residency investigation which determined that your child, [Student], resides in Framingham, МА on а full time basis…. From September 2025 to present, your child attended District schools while residing in Framingham, МА…. Unless your child is withdrawn by November 14, 2025, the District will require you to remit full restitution for the period of time that your child has attended and continues to attend District schools while living in another town.” (Parent’s Exhibits 3 and 4)

11. On November 18, 2025, Parent filed a complaint with PRS challenging the residency determination and the District’s findings regarding the Home/Hospital Form. (School Letter 1; Parent’s Exhibit 6)

12. On November 19, 2025, the District unenrolled Student from Ashland High School, and, on November 20, 2025, Student was “locked out” of all District electronic systems, including Google Classroom, and “lost all access” to coursework and instructional materials. (Hearing Request)

13. On November 25, 2025, Parent, through Advocate, filed the instant Hearing Request asserting that “[t]he District retained responsibility for instruction from September 19 through November 19–20, 2025. The loss of instruction and credit during this period is attributable solely to District action and/or inaction.” Moreover, “[o]nce the Home Instruction Notice was submitted, the District was legally obligated to implement home instruction or take lawful regulatory action. Its failure constitutes a denial of educational access and FAPE.” In addition, Parent challenged the District’s decision to withdraw the Student based on a lack of residency in Ashland. For relief, Parent sought an order for

“a. District-funded, immediate credit recovery enrollment through Keystone or Excel (or another comparable credit recovery program approved by the District) for the remaining required credits, so the student may begin coursework without further delay;

b. District approval and transcription of successfully completed credit recovery coursework toward Ashland High School graduation requirements;

c. Issuance of an Ashland High School diploma upon completion of the remaining required credits;

d. District-funded tutoring and/or instructional support, as necessary, to ensure the student can meaningfully access and successfully complete the approved credit recovery coursework in a timely manner;

e. Compensatory education and/or other appropriate remedial relief deemed necessary to make the student whole; and

f. Preservation of the student’s ability to graduate on time in June 2026 and receive an Ashland High School diploma.”[11]

14. On December 5, 2025, PRS concluded that the Home/Hospital Form submitted by Parent on September 19, 2025, was insufficient to trigger the District’s obligation under 603 CMR 28.03(3)(c) to provide Student with educational services in the home setting.[12] In addition, PRS concluded that the District complied with the law and its own policy regarding residency when it unenrolled the Student from the District on November 19, 2025. (School Letter 1)

15. According to records from The Education Cooperative Connections Academy Commonwealth of Massachusetts Virtual School (TECCA), Student enrolled at TECCA on December 22, 2025[13], but, as of January 8, 2026, she had yet to attend any classes or earn any credits there. (School Attachment 1)[14]

16. As of the time of the filing of the Hearing Request, Student had earned 21.75 high school credits. The District requires 23 credits for graduation. As such, Student requires 1.25 additional credits to meet graduation requirements. Student seeks to graduate on time in June 2026 with an Ashland High School diploma. According to Parent and Advocate, requiring Student to pursue a GED or non-diploma alternative would be inequitable given Student’s disability-related difficulties with standardized testing. (Parent’s Exhibit 6)

17. The matter is currently scheduled for hearing on January 20, 2026.

LEGAL STANDARDS AND APPLICATION OF LEGAL STANDARDS:

1. Legal Standards:

Pursuant to Rule XVII A and B of the Hearing Rules and 801 CMR 1.01(7)(g)(3)[15], a hearing officer may allow a motion to dismiss if the party requesting the hearing fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. These rules are analogous to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As such, hearing officers have generally used the same standards as the courts in deciding motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim.To survive a motion to dismiss, there must exist “factual ‘allegations plausibly suggesting (not merely consistent with)’ an entitlement to relief.”[16] The hearing officer must take as true “the allegations of the complaint, as well as such inferences as may be drawn therefrom in the plaintiff’s favor.”[17] These “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”[18]

Unlike a Motion to Dismiss, which requires the fact-finder to make a determination based on a complaint or Hearing Request alone, evaluation of a Motion for Summary Judgment permits the fact-finder to go beyond the pleadings to assess evidence. Pursuant to 801 CMR 1.01(7)(h), summary decision may be granted when there is “no genuine issue of fact relating to all or part of a claim or defense and [the moving party] is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.”[19] In determining whether to grant summary judgment, BSEA hearing officers are guided by Rule 56 of the Federal and Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that summary judgment may be granted only if the “pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there are no genuine issues as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”[20] A genuine dispute as to a material fact exists if a fact that “carries with it the potential to affect the outcome of the suit” is disputed such that “a reasonable [fact-finder] could resolve the point in the favor of the non-moving party.”[21] “As to materiality, the substantive law will identify which facts are material. Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted.”[22]

The moving party bears the burden of proof, and all evidence and inferences must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.[23]

In response to a motion for summary judgment, the opposing party “must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”[24] To survive this motion and proceed to hearing, the adverse party must show that there is “sufficient evidence” in its favor that the fact finder could decide for it.[25] In other words, the evidence presented by the non-moving party “must have substance in the sense that it [demonstrates] differing versions of the truth which a factfinder must resolve at an ensuing trial.”[26] The non-moving party’s evidence will not suffice if it is comprised merely of “conclusory allegations, improbable inferences, and unsupported speculation.”[27]

1. Jurisdiction of the BSEA:

20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6) grants the BSEA jurisdiction over timely complaints filed by a parent/guardian or a school district “with respect to any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child.”[28] Similarly, M.G.L. c. 71B §2A, establishing the BSEA, authorizes the BSEA to resolve special education disputes concerning “…(i) any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, education program or educational placement of a child with a disability or the provision of a free and appropriate public education to the child arising under this chapter and regulations promulgated hereunder or under the [IDEA], 20 U.S.C. section 1400 et seq., and its regulations; or (ii) a student’s rights under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. section 794, and its regulations.” Matters that come before the BSEA must involve a live or current dispute between the Parties.[29] In addition, the BSEA “can only grant relief that is authorized by these statutes and regulations, which generally encompasses orders for changed or additional services, specific placements, additional evaluations, reimbursement for services obtained privately by parents or compensatory services.”[30]

2. Education Services in Home or Hospital:

Pursuant to 603 CMR 28.03(3)(c),

“[u]pon receipt of a physician’s written order verifying that any student enrolled in a public school or placed by the public school in a private setting must remain at home or in a hospital on a day or overnight basis, or any combination of both, for medical reasons and for a period of not less than fourteen school days in any school year, the principal shall arrange for provision of educational services in the home or hospital. Such services shall be provided with sufficient frequency to allow the student to continue his or her educational program, as long as such services do not interfere with the medical needs of the student. The principal shall coordinate such services with the Administrator of Special Education for eligible students. Such educational services shall not be considered special education unless the student has been determined eligible for such services, and the services include services on the student’s IEP.”

2. Application of Legal Standards:

The essence of Parent’s Hearing Request is her claim that Ashland failed to provide Student with home instruction following receipt of the Home/Hospital Form on September 19, 2025 and that its failure to do so “constitutes a denial of educational access and FAPE.”

As a threshold matter, I find that the claims arising asserted against Ashland from December 22, 2025 forward must be dismissed because Ashland was not Student’s LEA beginning on that date. The record reflects that Student enrolled at TECCA effective December 22, 2025. Upon Student’s enrollment, TECCA became the Student’s LEA for purposes of the IDEA, M.G.L. c. 71B, and their implementing regulations, and assumed full responsibility for providing Student with a free appropriate public education (FAPE). [31]  Accordingly, to the extent that Parent asserts claims arising on or after December 22, 2025, those claims are asserted against an improper party. Even accepting as true the allegations set forth in the Hearing Request and drawing all reasonable inferences in Parent’s favor, as I am required to do[32], I find that Ashland bore no legal responsibility for Student’s education once Student enrolled at TECCA, and therefore cannot be held liable for any alleged denial of FAPE after that period.[33] All such claims must, therefore, be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Further, Ashland determined that, for the 2025–2026 school year, Student was a resident of Framingham, not Ashland. To the extent that Parent seeks review or reversal of that residency determination, and related relief for the portion of academic year 2025-26[34], that survived the above dismissal, the BSEA lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate such claims. School districts are programmatically and financially responsible for eligible students based on residency and enrollment.[35] The BSEA’s jurisdiction

under Section 504 is limited to what is set forth in 34 CFR §§104.31-104.39 and issues of residency determination are not included therein. Although 603 CMR 28.10(2), provides that the school district where a special education eligible student resides shall have both programmatic and financial responsibility, residency determinations are not themselves special education matters under IDEA, Section 504 or Massachusetts special education law; rather, they are administrative determinations typically made at the district level.  As they apply to all students regardless of disability status, they are not subject to review by the BSEA[36]. Accordingly, all claims challenging Student’s residency status must be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

For the purpose of a summary judgment determination, although there is a dispute as to Student’s residency, such fact is not material as I am unable to make a finding relative thereto. Hence, the only material fact before me relating to the issues raised by Parent in her Hearing Request is whether the Home/Hospital Form was appropriate such that it “verified” that  Student “must remain at home or in a hospital on a day or overnight basis, or any combination of both, for medical reasons and for a period of not less than fourteen school days in any school year” in accordance with 603 CMR 28.08(3)(c) and, as a result, obligated Ashland to provide Student with home education services from its issuance on September 19, 2025 until December 22, 2025 when Student enrolled in TECCA.[37] 

In the instant matter, Student’s physician indicated that Student was to remain out of school until January 2026 due to anxiety “triggered by social situations.” The physician did not indicate that Student had to “remain at home” nor that she was confined to the home; in fact, by her own admission, Student participated in many activities and employment opportunities outside the home during the relevant time frame.  Therefore, the Home/Hospital Form did not meet the standard set forth in 603 CMR 28.08(3)(c), and, therefore, the District was not obligated to provide Student with home services. As such, Ashland is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on these issues and such claims in the Hearing Request are also DISMISSED with prejudice.

ORDER:

The District’s Motions are allowed. Parent’s Hearing Request against Ashland Public Schools is dismissed with prejudice.

Ashland is also entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

Due to the findings in this Ruling, all other motions pending in this matter are considered moot.

So Ordered,

/s/ Alina Kantor Nir
Alina Kantor Nir

Date:  January 16, 2026

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] This Corrected Ruling is being issued due to a clerical error in the findings of fact which impacts the relevant timeframe during which Student was enrolled at Ashland Public Schools. This error does not alter my final conclusions or orders.

[2] Ashland’s Motion was titled Ashland Public Schools’ Motion To Dismiss /Motion For Summary

Judgment/Response To Parents’ Request For Hearing/Response To Parent’s’ Motion For Interim Alternative Education Setting. This Ruling addresses the Motion To Dismiss /Motion For Summary Judgment only. Ashland filed 11 exhibits in support of its Motion. These Exhibits are labeled as School Exhibits 1 through 11.  

[3] The PRS Closure letter is labeled as School Letter 1.   

[4] The Supplemental Motion was supported by one attachment, hereby labelled as School Attachment 1.  

[5] Blank v. Chelmsford Ob/Gyn, P.C., 420 Mass. 404, 407 (1995). In support of her Hearing Request, Parent submitted Exhibits 1 through 11 and 12a through 12f (hereby labelled as Parent’s Exhibits 1-11 and 12a-12f). 

[6] According to Ashland, the District has no documentation of an anxiety diagnosis for Student. (School Exhibits 2, 6, and 7). Specifically, via Prior Written Notice dated October 27, 2025, the District noted as follows:

“On the home hospitalization form that was shared with the district, there was an indication that [Student] has anxiety, which is the reason she will need to remain homebound through January 1, 2026.  According to her former school placement, the focus of the in-school support was on social challenges and the fallout that impacted her both in and out of school. Additionally, there was no supporting information provided with the form to indicate a formal diagnosis of anxiety. As a result of missing information and [Student] and her parent not attending the 504 meeting to provide clarity around this information, anxiety was not added to her 504 plan.” (School Exhibit 6)  

[7] Ashland disputes the filial relationship between Student and Advocate and asserts that “court records establish that [Advocate] is а family friend who petitioned the Middlesex County Probate Family Court for guardianship in October 2021 and has not served as [Student’s] guardian since 2022.” (School Exhibit 11)  

[8] Although Parent alleges that the District failed to implement home instruction services for Student, school exhibits suggest repeated attempts to schedule tutoring sessions. (School Exhibits 8 and 9)  

[9] Pursuant to a doctor’s note from Framingham Pediatrics dated November 6, 2025, Student was “self-employed as a dog walker and recently started a parttime job.” (School Exhibit 9) 

[10] According to Ashland, home-hospital tutoring began on October 17, 2025 despite its questioning the home/hospital form. 

[11] The matter was assigned to Hearing Officer Sara Berman. On January 14, 2026, the matter was reassigned to the undersigned Hearing Officer for administrative reasons.

[12] PRS noted that regardless of its questioning the Home/Hospital Form, the District had arranged for tutoring services to be provided in the home setting. 

[13] In the Ruling issued on January 15, 2026, I noted, in error, that Student enrolled at TECCA on September 22, 2025.

[14] Following the filing of the Hearing Request, in an email to Ashland on December 4, 2025 Advocate indicated that Student “has been offered а spot at [TECCA] and is currently in the enrollment process; however, she has not yet been formally accepted.” (Parent’s Exhibit 7) In addition, in an email to Hearing Officer Sara Berman dated December 16, 2025, Advocate clarified that “TEC Connections Academy issued Pearson Online Classroom usernames as part of its internal enrollment workflow. These accounts have not been activated, no coursework has been accessed, and instruction has not begun. The family has not authorized enrollment, … and has not consented to [Student] beginning instruction through TECCA.” In response to the District’s Supplemental Motion, Parent, in Parent[‘s/] Advocatе’s Opposition tо Ashland Public Schools’ Additional Motion tо Dismiss,does not dispute Student’s enrollment date but rather asserts that Student “has not participated in any ТЕССА courses, received instruction, or earned any credit from ТЕССА. Any administrative enrollment that may have been initiated was not implemented, resulted in no instruction or credit, and has since been discontinued.” (Supplemental Opposition) 

[15] Hearing Officers are bound by the BSEA Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals (Hearing Rules) and the Standard Rules of Adjudicatory Practice and Procedure, 801 Code Mass Regs 1.01.

[16] Iannocchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623, 636 (2008) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007)).

[17] Blank, 420 Mass. at 407.  

[18] Golchin v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 460 Mass. 222, 223 (2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

[19] 801 CMR 1.01(7)(h).

[20] Id.

[21] French v. Merrill, 15 F.4th 116, 123 (1st Cir. 2021); see Maldanado-Denis v. Castillo-Rodriguez, 23 F.3d 576, 581 (1st  Cir. 1994).

[22] Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

[23] See id. at 252; see also In Re: Westwood Pub. Sch., BSEA No. 10-1162 (Figueroa, 2010); In Re: Mike v. Boston Pub. Sch., BSEA No. 10-2417 (Oliver, 2010); Zelda v. Bridgewater-Raynham Pub. Sch. and Bristol County Agricultural Sch., BSEA No. 06-0256 (Byrne, 2006).

[24] Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250.

[25] Id. at 249.

[26] Mack v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 871 F.2d 179, 181 (1st Cir. 1989).

[27] Medina-Munoz v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 896 F.2d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1990).

[28] See 34 C.F.R. §300.507(a)(1).

[29] See In Re: Student v. Bay Path Reg’l Vocational Tech. High Sch., BSEA # 18-05746 (Figueroa, 2018).

[30] In Re: Georgetown Pub. Sch., BSEA #1405352 (Berman, 2014).

[31] Parent does not dispute Ashland’s claim that Student enrolled at TECCA in December 2025, but rather she argues that “[c]ontrary to Ashland’s assertion, [Student] ha[d] not participated in any ТЕССА courses, received instruction, or earned any credit from ТЕССА. Any administrative enrollment that may have been initiated was not implemented, resulted in no instruction or credit, and has since been discontinued.” I note that school district responsibility is based on “residency and enrollment,” not participation, attendance, or credit accumulation. 603 CMR 28.10(1); see George H. & Irene L. Walker Home for Child., Inc. v. Town of Franklin, 416 Mass. 291, 297, 621 N.E.2d 376, 379 (1993) (finding that the town “where the boys do reside[] has the responsibility for satisfying the requirements of G.L. c. 71B”).

[32] Blank, 420 Mass. at 407.

[33] In the Ruling issued on January 15, 2026, I stated that “to the extent that Parent asserts claims arising on or after September 22, 2025, those claims are asserted against an improper party.”

[34] The relevant time period is the start of academic year 2025-26 through December 22, 2025.

[35] See 603 CMR 28.10 (1).

[36]   See In Re: Springfield Pub. Schs., et. al., BSEA No.  2309351 (Mitchell, 2023) (the BSEA does not have jurisdiction, for instance, to address violations that pertain to a right that is available to all students regardless of their disability status or eligibility under the IDEA).   Moreover, while, pursuant to 603 CMR 28.10, the BSEA has jurisdiction in the limited circumstances that involve a claim filed by an LEA challenging DESE’s assignment of programmatic and/or fiscal responsibility for a student, it does not appear that this process (i.e., DESE making an LEA assignment determination) has occurred in this matter and neither school district (i.e., Ashland or Framingham) has sought such review.  Further, as Student is eligible under Section 504 but not the IDEA, it is unclear if such review would be appropriate

[37] In the Ruling issued on January 15, 2026, I stated, “Hence, the only material fact before me relating to the issues raised by Parent in her Hearing Request is whether the Home/Hospital Form was appropriate such that it ‘verified’ that  Student ‘must remain at home or in a hospital on a day or overnight basis, or any combination of both, for medical reasons and for a period of not less than fourteen school days in any school year’ in accordance with 603 CMR 28.08(3)(c) and, as a result, obligated Ashland to provide Student with home education services from its issuance on September 19, 2025 until September 22, 2025 when Student enrolled in TECCA.”