COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Division of Administrative Law Appeals
Bureau of Special Education Appeals
In Re: Student v. Longmeadow Public Schools
BSEA# 25-10207
RULING ON MOTIONS TO SUBMIT REBUTTAL TESTIMONY
On January 28-30, 2026, Parents and Longmeadow Public Schools (the District or Longmeadow) participated in a hearing addressing the following issues:
A. Academic Year 2022-2023
1) Whether Longmeadow failed to implement Student’s IEP for the period 3/18/22 to 3/17/2023, as amended on November 18, 2022 (March 2022 IEP, as Amended), from March 21, 2023 until the end of the 2022-2023 school year (during Student’s ninth grade) (i.e., access to assistive technology and other accommodations);
2) Whether Longmeadow violated Student’s and Parent’s procedural due process rights during the relevant time period in the 2022-2023 school year (i.e., March 21, 2023 through the end of the school year), including whether Longmeadow violated the Child Find requirement of the law in failing to identify a specific learning disability in written expression;
3) If the answer to any of the above is affirmative, then what is the proper remedy?
B. Academic Year 2023-2024
1) Whether Longmeadow failed to implement the accepted stay-put March 2022 IEP, as Amended, and accepted portions, if any, of the IEP for the period 12/20/2023 to 12/19/2024 (December 2023 IEP) during the 2023-2024 school year (Student’s tenth grade) (i.e., access to assistive technology and other accommodations);
2) Whether Longmeadow violated Student’s and Parent’s procedural due process rights during the 2023-2024 school year, including whether Longmeadow violated the child find requirement of the law in failing to identify a specific learning disability in written expression;
3) Whether the District failed to convene an IEP meeting to consider the results of an IEE within 10 school days;
4) If the answer to any of the above is affirmative, then what is the proper remedy?
C. Academic Year 2024-2025
1) Where the District failed to offer an IEP to Student between December 20, 2024 and April 16, 2025, whether Student’s unilateral placement was an otherwise proper placement?
2) Whether the IEPs dated 4/4/23 to 4/3/24 (April 2023 IEP) and 12/20/2023 to 12/19/2024 (December 2023 IEP) failed to offer Student a FAPE for the 2024-2025 school year;
3) Whether the District failed to provide Student with assistive technology for the 2024-2025 school year;
4) If the answer to any of the above is affirmative, then what is the proper remedy?
D. Academic Year 2025-2026
1) Whether the District failed to provide Student with assistive technology for the 2025-2026 school year;
2) Whether the IEP proposed for the periods April 16, 2025 IEP to April 14, 2026 (April 2025 IEP) failed to provide Student with a FAPE due to its failure to consider Student’s trauma, its failure to include an Autism and/or Specific Learning Disability in writing disability categories, and its proposal of a full inclusion program at Longmeadow High School;
3) Whether the District failed to hold a timely meeting to review the rejected April 16, 2025 IEP and Parent’s concerns;
4) If the answer to any of the above is affirmative, then what is the proper remedy?
At the conclusion of the Director of Special Education, Nicole Paris-Kro’s, testimony, Parent requested permission to submit rebuttal evidence, but, due to her pro se status, asked for additional time to do so. Parent was allowed until the close of business day on February 2, 2026, to submit a motion to submit rebuttal evidence.
On February 2, 2026, Parent submitted Parent’s Motion To Permit Limited Rebuttal Evidence Regarding District Testimony Concerning Reporting Of June 2024 IEP Rejection. In it, Parent asserts that
“during the District’s case, the District witness Nicole Paris-Kro testified that the District reported the Parent’s June 2024 rejection of the IEP to the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA). This testimony was offered affirmatively in response to direct questioning and was presented as a statement of procedural compliance…. The Parent is actively attempting to obtain written confirmation from the BSEA regarding the absence of notice in June or July 2024 and seeks permission to submit such confirmation as limited rebuttal evidence if obtained.”
Parent also filed Parent’s Motion To Permit Limited Rebuttal Evidence Consisting Of District Documentation Regarding Approval And Scope Of Assistive Technology
Accommodations. In it, she asserts that
“[d]uring the District’s case, multiple District witnesses testified that: the Student’s writing difficulties were limited to graphomotor concerns; the Student’s use of a home iPad and related writing software was never approved by the IEP Team; and the meaning and scope of the accommodation term ‘technology’ referenced in prior IEPs did not include comprehensive use of assistive technology for written work. These statements were offered as categorical factual assertions regarding the Student’s historical supports and the contents and meaning of District records…. The Parent seeks permission to submit pages one through three only of the Student’s IEP dated December 10, 2019 to December 9, 2020, which together constitute contemporaneous, District-authored documentation directly contradicting the District’s testimony and clarifying the scope of approved assistive technology.”
On February 3, 2026, the District filed Longmeadow Public Schools’ Motion In Opposition
To Parent’s Rebuttal Motions. The District argues that the alleged failure to submit Parent’s June 2024 IEP rejection to the BSEA is either irrelevant or harmless. It contends that whether the rejection was sent is not an issue in the case, and even if it was not submitted, the omission is de minimis and not material. The District also suggests the Parent may be referring instead to her later rejection of the December 2023–December 2024 IEP, which is in evidence. Longmeadow emphasizes that Parent has previously received a due process packet, is clearly aware of her due process rights, and has not identified any specific rebuttal evidence she would offer on this point. Finally, the District clarifies that Ms. Paris-Kro did not testify that she personally submitted the June 2024 rejection to the BSEA; she only assumed her office had done so and did not state she was certain. In addition, the District argues that the proposed rebuttal evidence from the December 2019–December 2020 IEP should be excluded because it is over six years old, is not a stay-put IEP, and therefore cannot contradict current witness testimony or evidence. The District also contends that any disputes about assistive technology were already addressed during the hearing and should be decided by the hearing officer based on the evidence presented.
LEGAL STANDARDS:
A trial judge possesses broad discretion in deciding whether to permit the presentation of rebuttal evidence.[1] A party does not have a right to present rebuttal evidence that merely bolsters the party’s affirmative case.[2] There are circumstances, however, in which a party may present rebuttal evidence as matter of right, as when seeking to refute evidence presented by an opposing party.[3] These circumstances include “the right to introduce … competent evidence to rebut evidence of new facts appearing in the testimony of witnesses called by the opponent.”[4] “To the extent that [the rebuttal evidence goes] to impeachment (as opposed to substantive issues in the case), judges have discretion to permit impeachment on collateral matters by extrinsic evidence offered in rebuttal.”[5]
However, “[t]here is no right to rebut evidence that was not unanticipated, or to present rebuttal evidence that merely supports the proponent’s affirmative case.”[6]
APPLICATION OF LEGAL STANDARDS:
Parent’s Motion To Permit Limited Rebuttal Evidence Regarding District Testimony Concerning Reporting Of June 2024 IEP Rejection is DENIED. To the extent Parent wishes to impeach Ms. Paris-Kro’s testimony, her proffered rebuttal evidence is unpersuasive for the stated purpose of impeaching Ms. Paris-Kro’s testimony. On January 30, 2026, Nicole Paris-Kro testified that all rejected IEPs are sent to the BSEA by her staff, not personally by her. In addition, the District correctly asserts that whether the rejection was sent is not an issue in the case, and even if it was not submitted, the omission is de minimis and not material, especially as Parent has not alleged that the District failed to provide her with Notice of her Procedural Safeguards.
Parent’s Motion To Permit Limited Rebuttal Evidence Consisting Of District Documentation Regarding Approval And Scope Of Assistive Technology Accommodations is also DENIED. The March 2022 IEP, which Parent accepted in full, speaks for itself. The evidence does not respond to any genuinely unanticipated issues raised at hearing, but instead attempts to revisit matters that were squarely addressed during the proceedings.
ORDER:
Parent’s Motion To Permit Limited Rebuttal Evidence Regarding District Testimony Concerning Reporting Of June 2024 IEP Rejection is DENIED. Parent’s Motion To Permit Limited Rebuttal Evidence Consisting Of District Documentation Regarding Approval And Scope Of Assistive Technology Accommodations is also DENIED.
So Ordered by the Hearing Officer,
/s/ Alina Kantor Nir
Alina Kantor Nir
Dated: February 4, 2026
[1] See Drake v. Goodman, 386 Mass. 88, 92, 434 N.E.2d 1211 (1982).
[2] Id. at 92.
[3] Id.
[4]Teller v. Schepens, 25 Mass. App. Ct. 346, 350 (1988).
[5] Com. v. Pagan, 440 Mass. 84, 90, 794 N.E.2d 1184, 1188 (2003).
[6] Oliveira v. Binder, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1113, 898 N.E.2d 889 (2008).