COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Student v. Belchertown Public Schools BSEA # 2608408
RULING ON PARENTS’ MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD AND, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO REOPEN THE RECORD
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A Hearing was held in this matter on May 29, June 1, and June 8, 2026. On June 12, 2026, the Hearing Officer issued an Order allowing the Parties’ joint request to postpone to allow submission of written closing arguments by July 8, 2026.
On July 8, Parents submitted the above entitled Motion (Motion) along with their written closing argument. Additionally, they submitted Father’s affidavit in support of their Motion. On July 14, Belchertown Public Schools (Belchertown) submitted its Opposition to Parents’ Motion to Supplement the Record and Motion to Reopen the Record[1].
Neither party has requested a hearing on the Motion. Because I find that 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, Parents’ Motion to Supplement the Record and to Reopen the Record is DENIED.
RELEVANT FACTS
The issues to be determined at the Hearing were as follows:
1. Was the Individualized Education Program (IEP) proposed by Belchertown Public Schools, dated December 15, 2025, to December 14, 2026 calling for a full inclusion placement in the district reasonably calculated to provide Student with a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment?
2. If not, what equitable relief, including compensatory services, is warranted?
3. Is Belchertown Public Schools’ IEP dated May 14, 2026 to May 13, 2027, and proposed substantially separate classroom placement in the language learning program or LLP in the district reasonably calculated to provide Student with a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment?
4. If not, then are there changes to Student’s IEP, such as supplementary accommodations and/or services that would result in the provision of a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment in which Student could make effective progress?
5. If the answer to number 4 is no, then whether Student requires any placement offered by Willie Ross School for the Deaf, including the partnership program, in order to receive a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment in order to make effective progress.
The IEP proposed by Belchertown for the period between May 14, 2026 and May 13, 2027 included ESY services consisting of audiological support from the Teacher of the Deaf 1 x 45 minutes per 3 day cycle; academics with the special education teacher/paraprofessional 435 minutes per 3 day cycle; speech/language therapy with the speech language pathologist/SLPA 1 x 30 minutes per 3 day cycle; and counseling with a licensed counselor 1 x 30 minutes per 3 day cycle. It is unclear when/if Parents accepted the services, as the IEP contained in the hearing record is rejected.
Parents’ Position
The IEP proposed by Belchertown for the period from May 14, 2026 through May 13, 2027 included ESY services for the period from July 7, 2026 through August 6, 2026[2]. Parents allege that Ms. Lynch, the Director of Student Services at Belchertown emailed Parents on June 9, 2026 to ask whether Student would be participating in the proposed ESY programming. Mother responded on June 16, 2026, stating that Student would attend the program and requesting answers to a number of questions, including whether there would be a Teacher of the Deaf (“TOD”), about what HAT equipment would be used, and who would be responsible for servicing and maintaining the HAT equipment. The following day Ms. Lynch wrote to Parents stating that Belchertown had contacted Clarke regarding its need for ESY services and she had no further information at the time. Ms. Lynch also reported that Student would use the same HAT equipment she had been using and that the teacher, Ms. O’Brien, and the staff are very familiar with the HAT equipment. Mother followed up with emails to Belchertown’s ESY Program Coordinator, Sean Kane, on June 22 and 25 and July 2, inquiring about updates regarding the ESY programming. Mr. Kane responded on July 3 and July 5, indicating that “Teacher of the Deaf services have not been finalized as of yet. We have the option of virtual services, but we are continuing to pursue in-person options at this time.” On July 6, 2026, the day before the ESY program began, Ms. Lynch emailed Parents and stated that they had not found a provider for the TOD services and were pursuing virtual services through Clarke.
Student attended the program on July 7, 2026 and did not have access to the HAT equipment for the first fifteen minutes of her day. Student had to assist the teacher in connecting her hearing aids to the HAT system. During instruction two students were talking behind her and it made it difficult for Student to hear. The pass around mic was only used during student introductions and not throughout the day.
On July 8, 2026 the pass around mic was not working during math instruction. It eventually connected. The Parents learned that the TOD services had been secured during the afternoon. The services were to be delivered virtually and Student was to have staff support.
Parents assert that the proposed affidavit of Father they seek to admit into evidence rebuts Belchertown’s evidence that the District would find somebody to provide Student with TOD services; that Ms. O’Brien could troubleshoot issues with the HAT system; and that Ms. O’Brien’s classroom is quiet. They claim that their proposed affidavit is salient to determining whether the placement and services proposed by Belchertown are reasonably calculated to provide Student with a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment, and directly addresses key factual and legal issues in this matter.
Belchertown’s Position
Belchertown asserts that the newly discovered evidence is not of such importance or relevance that its admission would alter the outcome of the case. It argues that the District’s alleged failure to implement Student’s IEP for ESY is not an issue before the Hearing Officer[3], and thus Parents’ alleged evidence is not relevant to the instant matter. Further, Belchertown asserts that the Hearing Officer allowed a postponement for the submission of closing arguments, not for the introduction of new evidence.
It further offers that: prior to ESY, which began on July 7, 2026, Student had never been enrolled in any program in Belchertown; Parents decided to enroll Student in ESY on June 17, 2026, providing late notice of her participation; and Parents informed Belchertown that Student would not be attending the ESY program after the week of July 14, 2026, due to a family vacation.
Finally, the District takes the position that if the Hearing Officer in fact allows additional evidence, it should not be through affidavit[4] as Belchertown has the right to cross-examine Parents’ witness and present its own witness to rebut the information, which would necessitate the scheduling of an additional day of Hearing.
ANALYSIS:
As explained in the matter of In Re: Student v. Springfield Public Schools BSEA No. 2208440 (Kantor Nir, 2022),
The fact-finder has discretion to grant a motion to permit additional evidence to be introduced after the record has been closed.[5] “When determining whether to reopen the evidentiary record, a Hearing Officer must consider a strong policy preference for predictability and finality of proceedings.”[6] As the First Circuit has recognized, "[t]he state has a strong interest in maintaining a stable trial format with a definite end as well as a beginning."[7] Therefore, a district court's decision to reopen the record "turns on flexible and case-specific criteria."[8] These criteria include "whether (1) the evidence sought to be introduced is especially important and probative; (2) the moving party's explanation for failing to introduce the evidence earlier is bona fide; and (3) reopening will cause no undue prejudice to the non-moving party."[9] Even in the context of criminal law, a moving party must show that the "proffered evidence is of such importance to the achievement of a just result that the need for admitting it overrides the presumption favoring enforcement of the state's usual trial procedures."[10] Evidence is considered to be "of such importance" if its admission would alter the outcome of the case.[11]
In the case before me, Parents have not demonstrated that the evidence sought to be introduced is especially important and probative or that it would be considered to be “of such importance” that its admission would alter the outcome of the case. In fact, the evidence Parents seek to admit is not relevant to the issues before me. The proposed evidence goes to the issue of compliance with the IEP, an issue which is not before me. [12]
Parents further argue that the affidavit is relevant in rebutting testimony that Ms. O’Brien’s classroom is quiet. Father states in his affidavit that two students sitting behind Student continued talking to one another after being told to be quiet. The alleged fact that two students talked out of turn during one ESY session is not of such importance that it would change the outcome of this case.
Another consideration in determining whether to reopen the record is whether there would be prejudice to the non-moving party. In this case Belchertown would be prejudiced by allowing the admission of Father’s affidavit. Belchertown has a different perspective of the events Father related in his affidavit. It would be prejudiced by not having the opportunity to cross-examine Father and present its own witnesses to rebut his assertions.
As I have determined that the proposed evidence is not relevant to the issues before me in the Hearing and that the issues raised by Parents were not of such importance that they would change the outcome of the case, Parents’ request to submit the Affidavit is DENIED.
Parents argued that the record is still open because they submitted their Motion thirty minutes before the 5:00 p.m. deadline for filing their closing argument (which was filed simultaneously). This is not persuasive as the postponement was allowed for the limited purpose of submitting closing argument and not in fact for submission of additional evidence.
ORDER:
The Parents’ Motion is DENIED.
So Ordered by the Hearing Officer,
/s/Catherine M. Putney-Yaceshyn
_________________________________
Catherine M. Putney-Yaceshyn
Dated: July 29, 2026
Footnotes
[1] The Hearing Officer was on vacation when the motion and opposition were submitted and received them upon returning to work on July 20, 2026.
[2] This IEP was rejected by Parents on May 22, 2026.
[3] Belchertown also argues that Parents are alleging a failure to implement Student’s IEP during the first two days of ESY.
[4] According to Belchertown, its staff disagrees with many of the characterizations provided in the affidavit, and that what occurred at the ESY program was not within Father’s first-hand knowledge.
[5] Kerr v. Palmieri, 325 Mass. 554, 557 (1950); see Blaikie v. Callahan, 691 F.2d 64, 65, 68 (1st Cir. 1982) (it is "within the sound discretion of the judge to admit material evidence offered by a party after he has rested").
[6] In re: Quin (Ruling on Motion to Reopen Evidence), BSEA #1605247 (Reichbach, 2016).
[7] Blaikie, 691 F.2d at 65.
[8] Davignon v. Hodgson, 524 F.3d 91, 114 (1st Cir. 2008); see Anderson v. Brennan, 911 F.3d 1, 13 (1st Cir. 2018).
[9] Anderson, 911 F.3d at 13 (internal citations omitted).
[10] Blaikie, 691 F.2d at 68.
[11] 29 CFR § 102.48(d)(1) ("In a motion to reopen the record, a party must state briefly the additional evidence sought to be adduced; explain why it was not presented previously; and state that, if adduced and credited, it would require a different result"); see N.L.R.B. v. Challenge-Cook Bros. of Ohio, Inc., 843 F.2d 230, 232 (6th Cir. 1988) (affirming board's refusal to reopen the record and receive further evidence, as it appeared that such evidence would not have changed the result of the case).
[12] Father’s affidavit alleges that there was no TOD available for Student during the first 2 days of Student’s ESY programming, which goes to the issue of Belchertown’s compliance with the IEP requirement that Student receive TOD services 1 x 45 minutes per 3 day cycle during the ESY period, something which is not before me. Further, Father’s affidavit states that Ms. O’Brien had some difficulty with the HAT equipment during the first two days of ESY. Similarly, that issue is not before me.