In Re: Student v. Brockton Public Schools BSEA# 26-04877

COMMOWEALTH OFF MASSACHUSETTS

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS

BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS

In Re: Student v. Brockton Public Schools                                                                      

BSEA# 26-04877

         

RULING ON BROCKTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND PARENTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR EXPEDITED RULING AND STAY-PUT RELIEF

On October 31, 2025, 2025, Parents requested an Expedited Hearing in the above-referenced matter.  Arguing that per the Parties’ mediation agreement, Student’s last agreed upon placement is READS Collaborative (READS), Parents’ Hearing Request seeks an order that READS be found to be Student’s stay-put placement, inclusive of transportation and related services.  Parents’ request is based on their concern that removal from READS would cause serious emotional harm and regression to Student who has recently been diagnosed with Autism and presents with a history of trauma.  Parents further seek compensatory services and/ or reimbursement for any out-of-pocket expenses they incur for transportation or other educational services for any periods during which Student’s education at READS is interrupted.  Lastly, they request an order that Student’s Team, inclusive of READS personnel, be convened to properly discuss the results of Student’s extended evaluation.[1]

On October 31, 2025, the District filed an Opposition to Parents’ Request for Expedited Hearing, further reserving its right to file a Motion to Dismiss at a later time.  On November 3, 2025, the matter was denied expedited status by the BSEA, as it did not meet the criteria for expedited status under federal standards[2] or Rule II.C.1 of the Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals.  The hearing was therefore scheduled on the BSEA’s standard track for Parent initiated hearing requests.

On November 6, 2025, Brockton Public Schools’ (Brockton or District) filed a Motion to Dismiss Student’s Hearing Request, arguing that the BSEA lacked jurisdiction over this matter, and, even if it did have jurisdiction, Parents failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.   

On November 7, 2025, Parents filed an Opposition to the District’s Motion and Parents’ Emergency Motion for Expedited Ruling and Stay-Put Relief. 

This Ruling is issued in consideration of Parents’ Hearing Request inclusive of the Parties’ Mediation Agreement.  For the reasons set forth below, Parents’ Motion for Expedited Ruling and Stay-Put Relief is DENIED, and Brockton Public Schools’ Motion to Dismiss is ALLOWED.

FACTS: 

The facts cited herein are presumed to be true only for purposes of this Motion to Dismiss and are lifted from Parents’ Hearing Request and the attachments to said Hearing Request.

1. Student is a fourth grade Brockton resident who has been diagnosed with ADHD, and most recently Autism Spectrum Disorder.  He presents with trauma-related emotional and behavioral dysregulation.
2. Student receives special education services under the categories of emotional impairment and autism.  His most recent IEP for the 2024-2025 school year called for participation in a substantially separate program in Brockton.  During this year he had numerous time outs and periods during which he was removed from instruction due to frequent episodes of significant dysregulation.
3. On July 18, 2025, the District requested a mediation (BSEA #2601044), which was held on August 12, 2025.  At the mediation, the Parties reached a Mediation Agreement (Agreement) which called for Student’s participation in a 40-day Extended Evaluation at READS or South Shore Collaboratives, including transportation, funded by Brockton. 
4. The Parties’ Agreement further provided at Paragraph #1.a.c, that,

“Stay put” placement for [Student] will be his current placement in Brockton Public Schools.

5. Paragraph #3 of the Agreement provided that,

Both parties agreed to return to mediation if following the extended evaluation there remains a disagreement as to an appropriate placement and at that time compensatory services will also be discussed by the parties.

6. Student was accepted at READS and his extended evaluation at said program began in September of 2025.
7. On or about October 30, 2025, Student’s Team convened to discuss the results of the Extended Evaluation, and Brockton offered Student placement in a substantially separate program in Brockton.  Parents were informed that as the evaluation period concluded on October 31, 2025, Student should return to Brockton’s substantially separate classroom on Monday, November 3, 2025.  Parents objected on the basis that they did not receive prior written notice proposing such change in placement and requested that Student remain at READS pending the Parties’ return to mediation, since Parents understood READS to be Student’s stay-put placement.  
8. On or about November 6, 2025, the Parties returned to mediation and on November 6, the District filed the instant Motion.
9. Parents’ Opposition to the District’s Motion notes that during the Mediation on November 6, 2025, Brockton agreed to hold a Team meeting by no later than November 14, 2025, to review the extended evaluation and develop an IEP.

LEGAL STANDARDS:

1. Jurisdiction of the BSEA:

The BSEA’s jurisdictional authority is found in the IDEA, M.G.L. c.71B, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the regulations promulgated under those statutes, expressly granting special education hearing officers jurisdiction over issues relating to “the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child”. 20 U.S.C. §1415(b)(6)(A).  M.G.L. ch. 71B, § 2A(a), grants the BSEA jurisdiction to hold adjudicatory hearings involving,

disputes between and among parents, school districts, private schools and state agencies 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 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 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.  

Consistent with 603 CMR 28.08(3), a school district may, among other things, request a hearing before the BSEA at any time on any matter involving the

…eligibility, evaluation, placement, IEP, provision of special education in accordance with state and federal law, or procedural protections of state and federal law for student with disabilities…

Consistent with the IDEA, the BSEA may exert its jurisdictional authority over matters brought to the BSEA “within two years of the date on which the parent or agency knew or should have known about the alleged action that forms the basis of the complaint”.  20 U.S.C. §1415(f)(3)(C). 

2. Motion to Dismiss:

Consistent with Rule XVI(B)(4) of the Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals and the Standard Adjudicatory Rules of Practice and Procedure, 801 CMR 1.01(g)(3 (as well as Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal and Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure), BSEA Hearing Officers are authorized to dismiss claims with or without prejudice when the party requesting the hearing fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

To survive a motion to dismiss the party opposing said motion must present “factual ‘allegations plausibly suggesting (not merely consistent with)’ an entitlement to relief.”[3]  In evaluating the complaint, 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.”[4]  These “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . [based] on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).”[5]

Lastly, in order to withstand a motion to dismiss, the BSEA hearing officer must be able to grant relief consistent with the federal and state statutes and regulations addressing special education, i.e., the IDEA, M.G.L. c.71B, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.  See Norfolk County Agricultural School, 45 IDELR 26 (2005).  Moreover, if the facts raised by the party opposing the motion to dismiss (herein Parents) raise even the plausibility of a viable claim giving rise to some form of relief under any of the aforementioned statutes, the case may not be dismissed.  See, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1948 (2009).[6] 

3. Placement Pending Appeal (Stay-Put):

The IDEA and accompanying special education regulations entitle students to remain in their then-current educational program and placement during the pendency of any dispute unless the parents and the school district agree otherwise.  20 USC §1415(j); 34 CFR 300.518(a).[7]   In Massachusetts, the requirement that students remain in their last agreed upon placement pending resolution of special education disputes between parents and school districts is embodied in M.G.L. c. 71B§3 and 603 CMR 28.08(7)[8],  which provides that,

In accordance with state and federal law, during the pendency of any dispute regarding placement or services, the eligible student shall remain in his or her then current education program and placement.

The purpose of this right, commonly known as “stay-put”, is to maintain a student’s educational situation during the pendency of an IDEA appeal, so that the student’s life is not disrupted unnecessarily while a dispute is being litigated.  In this sense, “current educational placement” is equivalent to “the operative placement actually functioning at the time the dispute first arises”.  L.Y. ex rel. J.Y. v. Bayonne Bd. of Educ., 384 Fed. Appx. 58, 61, 20110 WL 2340176, *2 (3^rd Cir. 2010) (quoting Thomas v. Cincinnati Bd. of Educ., 918 F.2d 618, 625-26 (6^th Cir.) 1990). 

A student’s placement is generally predicated upon the accepted IEP, the document which dictates the school district’s responsibility toward a resident student. Typically, one must look at the last agreed upon IEP for guidance in determining the program and placement to which a student is entitled during the pendency of a proceeding.  Determinations regarding stay-put require careful examination of the particular facts and circumstances surrounding the program and placement to which the student is entitled during the pendency of a dispute.  See Hale v. Poplar Bluff R-1 School District, 280 F.3d 831 (8^th Cir. 2002) (calling for the fact finder to inquire as to the specific facts of the case to examine the impact that educational changes may have on the student). However, when parties agree that placements are for temporary reasons, stay-put rights do not typically attach.[9]  Verhoven v. Brunswick School Committee, 207 F. 3d. 1, 10 (1^stCir. 1999).

Here, in addition to the definitions of stay-put embodied in federal and state law and regulations, , the language in the Parties’ August 2025 mediated agreement must be examined as well.          

4. Mediated Agreement:

Adopting federal guidelines regarding mediations, 603 CMR 28.08(4) guarantees Parents and school districts, the right to proceed to mediation as an option for dispute resolution[10].  Participation is mediation is voluntary and it is provided at no cost to the parents.  In Massachusetts, mediations are conducted by a group of independent mediators employed by the BSEA.  The process is confidential and the discussions therein may not be used at Hearing.  Consistent with 603 CMR 28.08(4)(a), if an agreement is reached it must be written and signed by representatives with decision- making authority. Participation in mediation is not a pre-requisite to initiating a hearing.  603 CMR 28.08(4).

Under 28 U.S.C. §1415(e)(2)(F)(ii) and (iii) a signed mediation agreement is a contract which may be used as evidence in due process proceedings and may only be enforced in a State court of competent jurisdiction.[11] 

Here, the mediation on August 12, 2025, culminated in an agreement that provided in pertinent parts of paragraphs #1 and #3 that: Student would participate in an extended evaluation at READS or at South Shore Collaboratives; if at the conclusion of the extended evaluation period the parties disagreed as to the appropriate placement for Student, they would return to mediation; and during the pendency of the dispute, Student’s stay put placement would be in Brockton.   At the conclusion of the extended evaluation period, the Parties disagreed as to Student’s stay-put placement and Parents requested a Hearing to clarify stay-put.

5.Extended Evaluations:

603 CMR 28.05(2)(b) allows parents and districts to agree to extend the evaluation period if the information about the student that is available to the Team is insufficient.  This is known as an extended evaluation. Such extended evaluation requires parental consent. If consent is obtained, 603 CMR 28.05(2)(b) provides that,

1. The extended evaluation shall not be used to deny programs or services determined to be necessary by the Team.  If, prior to the extended evaluation, the Team determines that sufficient information is available to identify some necessary objectives and services, the Team shall write a partial IEP that, if accepted by the parent, shall be immediately implemented by the district while the extended evaluation is occurring.
2. The extended evaluation shall not be used to allow additional time to complete the required assessment under 603 CMR 28.04(2)(a).
3. If the parent consents to an extended evaluation the Team shall document its findings and determine what evaluation time period is necessary and the type of information needed to develop an IEP, if appropriate. The Team may decide to meet at intervals during the extended evaluation, but in all cases shall reconvene promptly to develop or complete an IEP when the evaluation is complete
4. The extended evaluation may extend longer than one week but shall not exceed 8 school weeks.
5. The extended evaluation shall not be considered a placement. [Emphasis supplied].[12]

Therefore, by operation of law, extended evaluations cannot exceed eight weeks and cannot be considered a placement.

DISCUSSION:

The sole issue before me involves clarification of Student’s stay-put placement, an issue over which the BSEA has jurisdictional authority.  While the District is correct that the BSEA lacks jurisdiction to enforce mediation agreements, I do not read Parents’ Hearing Request as seeking enforcement of the Meditated Agreement, but rather as a request for clarification of stay-put.  In this context, as explained infra, the Mediation Agreement is but one piece of evidence to be considered. 

The evidence is undisputed that Brockton offered Student placement in a substantially-separate in-district program for the 2024-2025 school year, which placement Parents accepted.  Parents became dissatisfied with that placement and disagreed that the substantially separate placement in Brockton was appropriate for Student, as  Student’s dysregulation interfered with his ability to access instruction. The Parties agreed to participate in mediation to address their respective positions on Student’s presentation, needs, and the appropriateness of his educational placement.[13]   

The mediation resulted in an Agreement to have Student participate in an extended evaluation, and Student indeed participated in an extended evaluation at READS, as previously noted.  At the conclusion of the extended evaluation period, the Parties disagreed as to the appropriate placement for Student.

Parents here seek clarification of stay-put, arguing that Student was entitled to remain at READS during the pendency of their dispute.  In support of their position, Parents argued that the District failed to provide them with prior written notice of their intent to change Student’s placement from READS to the District. 

Parents argument, however, misunderstands the nature of extended evaluations, stay-put, and the effect of the Parties’ mediation agreement in the instant matter. 

Parents’ reasoning that READS constitutes Student’s stay-put placement is legally flawed.   Contrary to Parents’ assertions, Massachusetts law is clear that the location in which an extended evaluation takes place does not constitute “placement” for purposes of stay-put. 603 CMR 28.05(2)(b)5.  As Student attended READS as part of an extended evaluation.  READS does not qualify as a stay-put placement.[14]  Student’s participation in this program was for the limited purpose of offering the Team additional information and insight into his needs and the type of interventions and placement that might be appropriate for him to make effective progress.  Regardless of how well Student performed in that program, by operation of law, READS cannot be considered Student’s last agreed upon placement for stay-put purposes. 

Student has a legal right to attend the program and placement specified in the last accepted IEP, prior to his initiating the extended evaluation at READS.  That placement  is in Brockton, and it is in fact also his stay-put placement.  Student, therefore, has a right to continue to receive educational services consistent with the last-agreed upon IEP in Brockton’s substantially separate program during the pendency of the Parties’ dispute, unless the Parties agree otherwise.[15]

The record shows that the Parties’ voluntary participation in mediation on August 12, 2025, culminated in an agreement that altered their duties and responsibilities in three meaningful ways: 1) Student would participate in an extended evaluation at READS or at South Shore Collaboratives; 2) if at the conclusion of the extended evaluation period the parties disagreed as to the appropriate placement for Student moving forward, they would return to mediation; 3) during the pendency of the dispute, Student’s stay put placement would be in Brockton.  As a result of the agreement, Student participated in the extended evaluation at READS, and when the Parties did not agree to the placement proposed by Brockton at the conclusion of the evaluation period, Parents refused to return Student to Brockton, the stay-put placement to which they had agreed via mediation. 

Under 28 U.S.C. §1415(e)(2)(F)(ii) and (iii) a signed mediation agreement is a contract which may be used as evidence in due process proceedings and may only be enforced in a State court of competent jurisdiction.[16]  As contracts, mediation agreements bind parties as to the terms of those agreements when entered in good faith.  Since the Parties’ August 12, 2025 Agreement, submitted by Parents, specifically addresses stay-put, it must be considered, but only for purposes of clarification of Student’s stay-put rights.   See also 34 CFR §300.506(b)(7).

Here, both Parties voluntarily and in good faith entered into an agreement which clearly delineated the Parties’ rights and responsibilities.  Relying on the terms of said Agreement, Brockton agreed to fund an extended evaluation of Student which occurred at READS, one of the options stated in the Agreement.  The Parties further agreed that if there was disagreement as to the proposed placement at the conclusion of the extended evaluation period, they would return to mediation and that Student’s stay-put placement would be in Brockton per the last-agreed-upon IEP. 

In conclusion with respect to the stay-put issue, an extended evaluation is not a placement for purposes of the stay-put provision and Student was offered the opportunity to return to Brockton.  Therefore, Parents are not entitled to compensatory services or reimbursement for any out-of-pocket expenses incurred on transportation or other educational services, during the stay-put period.

Parents also request an order that  Brockton  convene Student’s Team, inclusive of READS personnel, to properly discuss the results of Student’s extended evaluation. 

In fact, consistent with the Agreement, the Parties returned to mediation on November 6, 2025, and Brockton agreed to hold a Team meeting by no later than November 14, 2025, to review the extended evaluation and develop an IEP.  Concerned that disagreement regarding placement would continue following said Team meeting, Parents continued to request a ruling from the BSEA.  To the extent that Parents’ claim includes the District’s failure to return to mediation per their August 12, 2025, Agreement, given that a mediation took place on November 6, 2025, Parents’ claim in this regard is now moot, as is the need to order Brockton to reconvene Student’s Team.[17]

In evaluating the Parents’ Hearing Request and Mediation Agreement in the context of  this Motion to Dismiss, and taking as true “the allegations of the complaint, as well as such inferences as may be drawn therefrom in the plaintiff’s favor,”^[18] I find that by operation of law and consistent with the language in the Parties’ Mediation Agreement, Student’s stay-put placement is in Brockton.  See In Re: Zeke and Pembroke Public Schools, BSEA #2300305 (Reichbach, 8/28/2022).   The BSEA cannot order READS as Student’s stay-put placement.  Since Parents have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted^[19], Brockton’s Motion to Dismiss must be ALLOWED.  This case is DISMISSED with prejudice as to the issue of Student’s current stay-put placement.

ORDER:

1. Brockton’s Motion to Dismiss is ALLOWED.
2. Student’s stay-put placement is a substantially separate program in Brockton.

So Ordered by the Hearing Officer,

/s/ Rosa I. Figueora

Rosa I. Figueroa

Dated: November 17, 2025

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS

EFFECT OF FINAL BSEA ACTIONS AND RIGHTS OF APPEAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

Compliance

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

Rights of Appeal

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

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

ConfidentialityIn 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]   Parents’ additional concerns of November 3, 2025, were also considered and taken as true for purposes of this Motion.

[2]   See 20 U.S.C. §1415(k) et seq.; 34 CFR §300.532(a) and (c) addressing expedited hearings in the discipline context.

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

[4] Blank v. Chelmsford Ob/Gyn, P.C., 420 Mass. 404, 407 (1995). 

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

[6] Denying dismissal if “accepting as true all well-pleaded factual averments and indulging all reasonable inference in the plaintiff’s favor…recovery can be justified under any applicable legal theory”.  Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1948 (2009).

[7]   See Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 325 (1988); Verhoven v. Brunswick School Committee, 207 F. 3d. 1, 10 (1^stCir. 1999); M.R and J.R. v. Ridley school District, 744 F.3d. 112,117 (3d Cir. 2014); In re: Framingham Public Schools and Quin, BSEA # 1605247, 22 MSER 12 (Reichbach, 2016); In Re: Abington Public Schools, BSEA # 1407763, 20 MSER 198 (Figueroa, 2014).

[8]   Exceptions to stay-put relative to violations of the code of conduct are not applicable in the instant case.

[9]   See Verhoven v. Brunswick School Committee, 207 F. 3d. 1, 10 (1^stCir. 1999), (“a reading of ‘current educational placement’ that includes the temporary… placement at issue here would thwart the purpose of section 1415 (J) and we declined to adopt such a reading”).

[10]   In Massachusetts, state agencies and private special education schools may also request BSEA mediations.

[11]   See Student v. Worcester Public Schools, BSEA #1302473 (Putney-Yaceshyn, 2013), Student v. Lincoln Sudbury Regional School District, BSEA 11-2546 (Figueroa, 2010), and In Re: Israel and the Monson Public Schools, BSEA #10-5064 (Byrne, 2010), all holding that the BSEA lacks jurisdiction to enforce settlement agreements. 

[12]   See also Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Administrative Advisory SPED 2019-2 stating that “[e]xtended evaluations, to the contrary, are not a placement and a student’s participation in an extended evaluation does not constitute a change in placement.”.

[13]   I note that the appropriateness of Student’s IEPs is not before me.

[14]   See In Re: Sharon Public Schools, BSEA #09-2797, 14 MSER 411 (Crane, 2008); In Re: Melrose Public schools & C.M., BSEA # 07-04987, 13 MSER 70 (Byrne, 2007) (an extended evaluation is not a placement and stay-put rights do not attach).

[15]   Parents’ concerns regarding the inappropriateness of Student’ program in Brockton is not before me.  Thus, their right to bring forth a separate action to dispute the appropriateness of any program offered by Brockton is reserved.

[16]   See Student v. Worcester Public Schools, BSEA #1302473 (Putney-Yaceshyn, 2013), Student v. Lincoln Sudbury Regional School District, BSEA 11-2546 (Figueroa, 2010), and In Re: Israel and the Monson Public Schools, BSEA #10-5064 (Byrne, 2010), all holding that the BSEA lacks jurisdiction to enforce settlement agreements. 

[17]   The mediation agreement resulting from the November 6, 2025, was not available for review.  However, in correspondence responsive to Parents’ email concerns of November 7, 2025, the District noted the Parties’ agreement to allow Student to remain at READS until the Team reconvenes and a new IEP is issued.  At present, Brockton is offering Student participation in one of two substantially separate programs in Brockton  (Administrative Record).

[18]   Cf. Blank v. Chelmsford Ob/Gyn, P.C., 420 Mass. 404, 407 (1995). 

[19]   Cf. Blank v. Chelmsford Ob/Gyn, P.C., 420 Mass. 404, 407 (1995).