COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In re: Student v. Plymouth Public Schools
BSEA # 2611128 & BSEA # 2612724
RULING ON PLYMOUTH PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PARENTS’ CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This matter comes before the Hearing Officer on Plymouth Public Schools’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Request for Postponement of Hearing Dates and Parents’ Opposition to Plymouth Public Schools’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.
Plymouth Public Schools filed an Amended Hearing Request on April 6, 2026. Parents filed their Hearing Request on April 24, 2026, which included cross-claims against the District and additional claims involving compensatory services. Parents thereafter moved to consolidate the two matters, and the District joined in the request. Because the parties are the same and the issues overlap, the matters were consolidated.[1]
The pending cross-motions concern whether Plymouth Public Schools is legally obligated to fund independent educational evaluations in the areas of a home-based functional behavioral assessment, a competing-stimuli assessment, and an assistive technology evaluation.[2]
While the District asserts that the statutory and regulatory prerequisites for publicly funded independent educational evaluations have not been met, Parents contend that the District failed to evaluate Student in all areas of suspected disability and cannot avoid public funding for independent evaluations by refusing to conduct necessary evaluations in the first instance.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
On March 27, 2026, Plymouth Public Schools (Plymouth or District) filed a Hearing Request with the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) regarding Parents’ request for independent educational evaluations (IEEs) in the areas of a competing-stimuli assessment and an assistive technology evaluation. Parents responded that the District’s initial Hearing Request did not include the home-based functional behavioral assessment (“home FBA”) issue.
On April 6, 2026, Plymouth filed an Amended Hearing Request, which expanded the District’s request to include the home FBA issue. This filing triggered issuance of a Re-Calculated Notice of Hearing in BSEA # 2611128.
On April 8, 2026A Parents, then proceeding pro se, submitted a witness list in preparation for hearing, identifying potential witnesses including District personnel[3], and on April 13, 2026, Attorney Laura Gillis filed a Notice of Appearance as counsel for Parents.
On April 15, 2026, Plymouth filed its Motion for Summary Judgment and Request for Postponement of Hearing Dates, with exhibits[4]. Plymouth requested that the Hearing Officer find, as a matter of law, that the District was not obligated to fund IEEs in the areas of competing-stimuli assessment, assistive technology evaluation, and home FBA. The District argued that it had not conducted a home FBA or competing-stimuli assessment, and that Parents’ right to request a publicly funded assistive technology IEE expired sixteen months after the District conducted its own assistive technology evaluation in September 2024.[5] Plymouth further requested a postponement of the April 27, 2026, hearing date to allow time for litigation and consideration of the District’s Motion for Summary Judgment, which request was Granted for good cause on April 21, 2026, and the Hearing was continued to May 29 and June 1, 2026.
On April 21, 2026, Parents filed an Opposition to Plymouth’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, together with exhibits[6]. Parents assert that no genuine issue of material fact exists and Parents, rather than the District, were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Parents argued that Plymouth was legally obligated to fund IEEs in the areas of competing-stimuli assessment, assistive technology evaluation, and home FBA because the District had failed to conduct necessary evaluations in all areas of suspected disability and could not avoid IEE funding by refusing to evaluate.
On April 23, 2026, Parents filed an Amended Opposition to the District’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Parents’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment clarifying that prior language regarding home-based assessments since 2022 should reflect that the District had not “conducted” a home-based assessment since 2022. Parents further noted that a three-year reevaluation that did not include a home assessment had been proposed by the District in February 2024, and that the District then issued a second Evaluation Form in April 2024 which proposed to conduct a home assessment. Parents rejected the proposal as not needed at that time.
On April 24, 2026, Parents filed their own Request for Hearing against Plymouth (BSEA # 2612724). Parents’ Hearing Request included cross-claims against the District on issues related to the previously filed cross-claim, and additional claims involving compensatory services.
On April 27, 2026, Parents filed a Motion to Consolidate BSEA # 2612724 with BSEA # 2611128. Plymouth joined Parents in their request to consolidate the two matters on May 4, 2026. On same date it filed its Response to Parents’ Hearing Request, involving the November 2025 home FBA request, the March 2026 competing-stimuli and assistive technology IEE requests, arguing that Parents’ claims for publicly funded IEEs were unsupported by the governing statutory and regulatory framework.
The two matters were consolidated on May 5, 2026, and at the request of the Parties, the issues were bifurcated: the issues subject to the Motions for Summary Judgment would be addressed first, and the compensatory services claim would be addressed separately on July 23, 2026. The Parties further agreed to waive a hearing on their respective Motions for Summary Judgment, requesting instead that the Hearing Officer issue a ruling on the Parties’ written submissions. The requests were allowed for good cause and May 29, 2026 was designated as the deadline for submission of any additional information related to the Parties’ Motions for Summary Judgment.
This Ruling is issued in consideration of the documents and arguments submitted by the Parties.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The following facts are derived from the pleadings and exhibits submitted by the Parties. Because this matter is before me on cross-motions for summary judgment, I view the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party as to each motion.[7] That is, in considering Plymouth’s Motion for Summary Judgment, I construe the record in favor of Parents, and in considering Parents’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, I construe the record in favor of Plymouth.[8]
1. Student is a fourth-grader enrolled in Plymouth Public Schools. He is eligible for special education services under the disability categories of Autism, Emotional Impairment, and Health Impairment. At present he attends an out-of-district program at the May School in Mansfield, Massachusetts. Said placement is publicly funded (District MSJ; P-1).
2. Student’s current IEP covers the period from October 17, 2025 to October 16, 2026. Said IEP is partially rejected (PE-1).
3. Student began attending the May School on August 19, 2025. Prior to attending the May School, Student had missed approximately 230 school days (46 weeks), across the 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 school years (PE-2).
4. Student has a history of engaging in challenging behaviors when experiencing emotional distress or dysregulation in the school setting. These behaviors have included aggression toward staff, property destruction, refusal to participate in activities, elopement attempts, and self-injurious behavior. Student also has a history of toileting-related difficulties in the school setting, including urinary and bowel-movement withholding during the school day (PE-3). Issues regarding toileting are also present when he is out in the community and at home (PE-2; PE-3).
5. Plymouth conducted an assistive technology evaluation of Student in September 2024. The evaluation recommended, among other things, that Student use a Chromebook for learning and academic tasks and build Chromebook skills through low-frustration, highly successful academic-oriented tasks. The evaluation also stated that as Student began to acclimate and build stamina for engaging in learning activities, assistive technology accommodations and activities for learning might warrant a revisit (SE-9; PE-19).
6. Plymouth conducted a home assessment in March 2022. According to Parents, the purpose of that assessment was to determine whether Student presented differently at home than at school and to gather information to inform development of his educational program. Plymouth has not conducted an updated home assessment or other home-based assessment to measure differences in Student’s presentation across settings, generalization of skills, or the function of behaviors across settings since March of 2022 (Parents’ Amended Opposition; PE-1; PE-2).
7. On October 17, 2025, Student’s IEP Team convened for an annual review meeting. Plymouth proposed a new IEP on or about October 24, 2025. Data collected by the May School staff was incorporated into the IEP, including information regarding current academic performance and annual goal performance (PE-1).
8. On October 24, 2025, Plymouth issued an N1 and an N2 relative to Parents’ request for a district-funded home assessment. Plymouth rejected the request on the basis of insufficient information indicating the need for a home assessment. The N1 further noted that the purpose of a school-based home assessment was to determine barriers impacting a student’s access to school, and that, based on the IEP meeting and information presented, no concerns impeding Student’s ability to access school from the home had been shared (PE-4; PE-5). The N2 specified that Student’s annual review meeting information, current performance, educational history, and services at the May School were used as the basis for the refusal (PE-5).
9. On October 24 and October 30, 2025, Parent emailed Plymouth seeking clarification regarding their request for an in-home FBA, rather than a general home assessment. Parents noted that they sought assessments in all areas of suspected disability, including significant maladaptive behaviors at home and difficulties with generalization of skills to the home setting (PE-6). Email communications between Parents and the District during this period also reflect Parents’ request for record corrections involving services to the home which had been unilaterally discontinued by Plymouth (PE-6).
10. On November 3, 2025, Parent again communicated with the District regarding the request for an in-home FBA. According to Parents, Plymouth declined to issue a corrected N1/N2 specific to the in-home FBA request and declined to conduct the in-home FBA (PE-6; Parents’ Amended Opposition).
11. On November 11, 2025, Parent emailed Plymouth regarding their request for a home FBA. Plymouth responded seeking clarification as to whether Parent was requesting a home assessment or a home FBA (SE-1; PE-7).
12. On November 12, 2025, Parents requested that Plymouth fund an IEE in the form of a home FBA (SE-1; PE-7).
13. On November 14, 2025, Plymouth issued an N2 refusing Parents’ request for an IEE in the area of a home FBA. Plymouth noted that it had not completed a home FBA and that a parent’s right to an IEE is triggered if the parent disagrees with an evaluation obtained by the public agency. (SE-1; PE-9). Suzanne Hynes, Ed.D., Plymouth Out of District Liaison, offered to discuss the need for a home assessment as well as other parental IEP rejections during a meeting scheduled for November 20, 2026 (PE-7; PE-8).
14. Parents subsequently obtained a privately funded home-based FBA through Empirical ABA (Empirical). Empirical’s FBA was conducted by Stephanie Marckini, MS, BCBA, LABA, between November 19, 2025 and February 3, 2026. (SE-4; PE-2). The report, dated February 19, 2026, notes that the home FBA was sought as a result of increased behavioral challenges in the home, including elopement, bathroom avoidance, outbursts, and pica. The FBA sought to determine the function of interfering behaviors observed in the home setting (SE-4; PE-2). An observation of Student in his May School program was also conducted as part of this evaluation (Id.).
15. Empirical’s home data collection for the period from January 28, 2026, through February 3, 2026, showed that Student engaged in an average of 2.4 instances of elopement per day, 3.4 instances of bathroom avoidance per day, one outburst per day, and one instance of pica per day (PE-2). Ms. Marckini recommended six hours per month of parental training and home consultation services, inclusive of Behavioral Skills Training (BST) to address toileting, behavioral reduction, leisure skills, activities of daily living and safety skills in the community (PE-2). Ms. Marckini also recommended a formal technology assessment and that a competing-stimuli assessment to evaluate alternative options to address sensory input and pica be conducted (PE-2).
16. Ms. Marckini noted that “[e]ffective collaboration between caregivers and providers is essential to minimize conflicting strategies, reduce frustrations, and foster a unified support plan that promotes generalization of skills. Shared information regarding [Student’s] emotional triggers, behavioral patterns, and successful intervention strategies can guide more effective treatment planning across settings. In addition, it is imperative that coordination occurs with [Student’s] May School Team in order to generalize [Student’s] bathroom desensitization program to the home setting” (PE-2).
17. On November 20, 2025, Student’s Team reconvened to review Parents’ rejections to the proposed IEP. Plymouth asserts that, at the time, the District offered to discuss whether a home-based FBA was warranted and that Parents declined to engage in discussion regarding that issue. Parents dispute the District’s characterization of the home FBA issue and maintain that they had already requested the home FBA and then requested the IEE after the District refused to conduct the evaluation (SE-5; SE-6; PE-7; PE-10; Parents’ Amended Opposition).
18. On December 25, 2025, Student was evaluated in an emergency room setting. According to Parents, imaging revealed a coil-like foreign body in Student’s abdomen, which Parents identify as relevant to their concerns regarding pica and ingestion of non-food items (PE-13; PE-14).
19. On March 12, 2026, the Team met to review the privately obtained home FBA. During that meeting, Parents requested that Plymouth complete the competing-stimuli assessment and the assistive technology evaluation, recommended by Stephanie Marckini (P-2; P-12; Parents’ Amended Opposition).
20. On March 17, 2026, Plymouth issued an N2 refusing provision of home services and refusing to complete a competing-stimuli assessment and assistive technology evaluation. According to Plymouth, relying in part on a March 2026 May School school-based FBA, these were not needed because Student was accessing and making progress in his current educational program at the May School, his behavioral team was able to design programming and implement a behavior support plan with information obtained from its own evaluations, and because an assistive technology evaluation had been completed in September 2024 and the recommendations had been incorporated into Student’s educational program (PE-3; PE-12). Plymouth also rejected a formal assistive technology assessment (PE-12).
21. The May School’s report summarizing an FBA conducted between January 29 and March 16, 2026, recommends “collaboration with outside providers and caregivers Is recommended to ensure consistency across environments and to address potential medical, behavioral, and emotional variables that may influence [Student’s] behavior. This may include coordination with medical professionals, behavioral clinicians, or other relevant specialists to support toileting concerns, emotional regulation, and behavioral intervention planning. Sharing behavioral data and intervention strategies across settings may help promote consistent support and improve outcomes for the student” (PE-3). This assessment notes an increase in self-injurious behaviors and recommends conducting a competing stimulus assessment (Id.).
22. Parents filed a complaint with DESE’s Program Resolution System (PRS) and on March 19, 2026, PRS issued a State Complaint Decision finding that Plymouth had not complied with 34 C.F.R. § 300.502 and 603 CMR 28.04(5) in connection with Parents’ home FBA IEE request. PRS ordered Plymouth, either to agree to pay for an IEE for a home FBA as requested by Parents or to proceed to the BSEA in accordance with the applicable federal and state IEE regulations by April 2, 2026 (PE-15).
23. On March 20, 2026, Parents requested that Plymouth fund IEEs in the areas of a competing-stimuli assessment and assistive technology as recommended by their independent evaluator from Empirical (SE-7; PE-16).
24. On March 23, 2026, Plymouth issued an N1 and N2 rejecting Parents’ request for independent educational evaluations in the areas of assistive technology and competing-stimuli (SE-8; PE-17). Once again Plymouth relied on Student’s progress at the May School, the behavioral team’s existing evaluative information, and the September 2024 assistive technology evaluation as the bases for denying Parents’ request for publicly funded IEEs in the requested area (SE-8; PE-17).
25. To date Plymouth has not conducted a home FBA, and it has not agreed to Parents’ request for a competing-stimuli assessment or an assistive technology evaluation. (District MSJ; District Response to Parents’ Hearing Request).
III. Legal Standards:
Motion for Summary Judgment:
Pursuant to the Standard Adjudicatory Rules of Practice and Procedure, summary judgment 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.”[9] In determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, BSEA hearing officers are guided by Rule 56 of the Federal and Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure.[10] Summary judgment is appropriate only where the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, demonstrates that no genuine issue of material fact exists.[11] A genuine issue of material fact exists where the evidence is such that a reasonable factfinder could return a decision for the non-moving party.[12]
Where, as here, both parties have moved for summary judgment, each motion must be evaluated separately.[13] In considering Plymouth’s Motion for Summary Judgment, I view the record in the light most favorable to Parents. In considering Parents’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, I view the record in the light most favorable to Plymouth.
Independent Educational Evaluations:
Under the IDEA and its implementing regulations, a parent has the right to obtain an independent educational evaluation at public expense if the parent disagrees with an evaluation obtained by the public agency.[14] Once a parent requests an IEE at public expense, the school district must, without unnecessary delay, file a due process complaint to show that its evaluation is appropriate or ensure that the IEE is provided at public expense.[15] If the district files for hearing and establishes that its evaluation is appropriate, the parent retains the right to an independent evaluation, but not at public expense.[16]
Consistent with the IDEA and implementing regulations, in Massachusetts, when a parent disagrees with a school district’s evaluation and requests an IEE at public expense, the district must either agree to fund the IEE or proceed to the BSEA to show that its evaluation was comprehensive and appropriate.[17] A parent may request public funding for independent evaluations in any and all areas assessed by the school district.[18]
Furthermore, 603 CMR 28.04(6)(d) that,
If the parent is requesting an independent education evaluation in an area not assessed by the school district, the student does not meet income eligibility standards, or the family chooses not to provide financial documentation to the district establishing family income level, the school district shall respond in accordance with the requirements of federal law. Within 5 school days, the district shall either agree to pay for the independent education evaluation or proceed to the Bureau of Special Education Appeals to show that its evaluation was comprehensive and appropriate. If the Bureau of Special Education Appeals finds that the school district's evaluation was comprehensive and appropriate, then the school district shall not be obligated to pay for the independent education evaluation requested by parent. [Emphasis supplied.] [19]
The right to an IEE at public expense is related to, but distinct from, a school district’s obligation to evaluate a student in all areas of suspected disability.[20] While a parent’s disagreement with a district evaluation may trigger the IEE process, a school district must also ensure that a student is assessed in all areas related to the suspected disability and that the evaluation is sufficiently comprehensive to identify the student’s special education and related service needs.[21]
IV. Discussion and Application of Legal Standards:
Plymouth argues that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Parents have not satisfied the statutory and regulatory prerequisites for publicly funded IEEs in the areas of a home FBA, competing-stimuli assessment, or assistive technology evaluation.[22] According to Plymouth, Parents are not entitled to publicly funded IEEs in the areas of a home FBA or competing-stimuli assessment because Plymouth has not conducted evaluations in those areas and, therefore, there are no District evaluations with which Parents may disagree. Plymouth further argues that Parents’ request for a publicly funded assistive technology IEE is untimely because Plymouth completed an assistive technology evaluation in September 2024 and Parents did not request an IEE within the regulatory sixteen-month period.[23]
Parents’ response and cross claim argue that Plymouth’s Motion improperly narrows the dispute to a technical IEE-timing issue while ignoring the District’s separate obligation to evaluate Student in all areas of suspected disability.[24] Parents argue that Plymouth cannot avoid public funding for IEEs by refusing to conduct evaluations in areas where Student’s needs were known or suspected. Specifically, Parents assert that the District was aware of behavioral concerns across settings, including home-based behavioral concerns and pica-related safety concerns, and that Plymouth’s refusal to conduct a home FBA or competing-stimuli assessment cannot operate as a shield against Parents’ IEE claims.
Parents also argue that the September 2024 assistive technology evaluation contemplated a future “revisit,” and that Student’s later presentation and changed circumstances warranted further assistive technology assessment.
Parents assert that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the undisputed record establishes that Plymouth failed to evaluate Student comprehensively, and in all areas where Student’s needs were known or suspected.
Plymouth disputes this characterization and maintains that Student was accessing and making progress in his out-of-district educational program, that existing evaluative information was sufficient to develop and implement Student’s program, and that Parents’ requests for IEEs were not supported by the governing federal and state IEE regulations.
The substantive dispute presented in the hearing requests requires consideration of two related but distinct questions. First, whether Parents have satisfied the regulatory prerequisites for publicly funded IEEs in the areas of a home FBA, a competing-stimuli assessment, and an assistive technology evaluation. Second, whether Plymouth failed to conduct evaluations in all areas of suspected disability.
If Plymouth failed to evaluate Student in all areas of suspected disability, that alleged failure may be relevant to Parents’ remaining evaluation-related, denial of FAPE, and compensatory-services claims.
Here, however, I address the IEE issue. Although the three IEE requests are related, they involve different factual and regulatory analyses and I address each in turn, starting with the request for the home FBA.
Relying on federal and state regulatory language, Plymouth argues that Parents are not entitled to a publicly funded home FBA because Plymouth did not conduct a home FBA itself. The District reasoned that absent an evaluation in this area with which Parents may disagree, there is no right to a publicly funded IEE.[25]
Parents argue that the District’s position improperly rewards the district for refusing to evaluate Student in an area of suspected disability. Parents assert that they repeatedly requested an in-home FBA because Student demonstrated significant behavioral needs across settings, including elopement, bathroom avoidance, outbursts, and pica in the home setting. Parents further contend that Plymouth cannot avoid public funding for an IEE by refusing to conduct the very evaluation that Parents believe was necessary.
The material facts necessary to decide this issue are not disputed. Plymouth did not conduct a home FBA, reasoning that Student was attending an out-of-district program with extended school year services in which he was making effective progress and receiving a FAPE, therefore a home FBA was not needed (PE-5). Faced with the District’s refusal to conduct a home assessment/ home FBA, Parents requested public funding for an IEE in this area. Plymouth denied Parents’ request on the basis that it had not conducted its own home FBA. Plymouth did not request a Hearing with the BSEA within five school days of Parents’ request. Parents then obtained a privately funded home FBA through Empirical ABA for which they week reimbursement in their hearing request.
In considering Plymouth’s Motion, the District is correct that the regulatory right to an IEE at public expense is triggered when a parent disagrees with an evaluation obtained by a public agency.[26] Here, Plymouth declined to conduct the home FBA requested by Parents, so the District never conducted a home FBA. Absent a district home FBA, there was no evaluation with which Parents disagreed.[27]
As such, the District is technically correct that in October and November of 2025, Parents’ were not yet entitled to a home-FBA because the prerequisite to entitlement had not been met.
However, 603 CMR 28.04(6)(d) specifically mandates that when a parent requests an independent evaluation in an area not assessed by the school district, the District must either agree to fund the IEE or proceed to the BSEA within five school days to show that its evaluation was comprehensive and appropriate.[28] While the District denied the request within five school days, it failed to proceed to the BSEA within the five-day timeline.[29] In failing to do so, the District lost its right to defend its position.[30] As such, it was responsible to fund Parents’ desired home FBA IEE.
Accordingly, Plymouth’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as to Parents’ claim for a publicly funded IEE in the area of a home-based FBA, and Parents’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment in this regard is ALLOWED.
Plymouth advanced a similar argument with respect to Parents’ request for a competing-stimuli assessment IEE. The District argued that Parents were not entitled to a publicly funded competing-stimuli assessment because Plymouth did not conduct a competing-stimuli assessment and, therefore, there is no District evaluation with which Parents may disagree.[31] Plymouth noted that Student was accessing and making progress in his educational program at the May School and that the behavioral team had sufficient evaluative information to design programming and implement a behavior support plan.
Parents disputed Plymouth’s allegations noting that the request for a competing-stimuli assessment arose from safety concerns regarding Student’s pica and the recommendations made after the privately obtained home FBA. Parents assert that the assessment was necessary to identify alternative sources of sensory input and to address the function of Student’s pica-related behaviors. Parents further contend that Plymouth cannot avoid public funding for the requested IEE by refusing to conduct a competing-stimuli assessment in the first instance.
Once again, the material facts are not disputed. Plymouth did not conduct a competing-stimuli assessment. Parents requested that Plymouth conduct a competing-stimuli assessment as recommended by their private evaluator after the March 12, 2026 Team meeting. Plymouth refused to conduct the assessment and notified Parents of the District’s determination via a N2 dated March 17, 2026. On March 20, 2026, Parents requested public funding for an IEE in the area of a competing-stimuli assessment, and Plymouth denied the request in a N1 and N2 dated March 23, 2026. Thereafter, Plymouth did not request a Hearing with the BSEA within five school days of Parents’ request.
The legal analysis supra regarding the home FBA request is here applicable. As with the home FBA, the issue is whether Parents are entitled to a publicly funded IEE based when the District did not itself conduct a competing-stimuli assessment despite Parents’ request for same.[32] Again, as the District did not proceed to the BSEA within five school days of Parents’ request it forfeited its right to defend its position. As such, the District is responsible to fund a competing-stimuli assessment IEE.[33]
Plymouth’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as to Parents’ claim for a publicly funded IEE in the form of a competing-stimuli assessment, and Parents’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment as to that issue is ALLOWED.
The last parental IEE request was in the area of Assistive Technology.
It is undisputed that in September 2024, Plymouth conducted an assistive technology evaluation. Plymouth argued that Parents are not entitled to a publicly funded assistive technology IEE because Parents failed to request the IEE within the regulatory sixteen-month period following the District’s September 2024 evaluation.[34] Plymouth further asserts that the results of that evaluation were incorporated into Student’s educational program.
Parents responded that the September 2024 assistive technology evaluation itself contemplated that assistive technology accommodations and activities might warrant a future “revisit” as Student acclimated and built stamina for learning activities. Parents further argued that Student’s later presentation constituted a change in educational circumstances. Moreover, in February 2026, Ms. Marckini noted the need for said evaluation recommending that an assistive technology assessment be conducted.
Plymouth refused to conduct the assessment and notified Parents of the denial by N2 dated March 17, 2026. Thereafter, on March 20, 2026, Parents requested public funding for an assistive technology IEE and Plymouth denied that request via N1 and N2 dated March 23, 2026. Plymouth did not request a Hearing with the BSEA.
Unlike the home FBA and competing-stimuli assessment requests, the District had conducted an assistive technology evaluation in 2024, and Parents did not disagree with the results of said evaluation and did not request an IEE in this area within sixteen months of the District’s assistive technology evaluation.[35] Here, it is correct that Parents did not disagree with the District’s 2024 evaluation, rather, they noted a change of circumstances that warranted conducting a new assistive technology evaluation, and thus, on March 20, 2026, requested public funding for an assistive technology IEE. The District did not request a hearing before the BSEA to show that its evaluation was comprehensive and appropriate.
I note that Parents’ reliance on the “revisit” language in the September 2024 evaluation may be particularly relevant to whether Plymouth should have conducted a new or updated assistive technology evaluation as circumstances changed and Student’s needs evolved. Therefore, evidence supportive of this argument remains relevant to Parents’ broader claim that Plymouth failed to evaluate Student in all areas of suspected disability.
Accordingly, Plymouth’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as to Parents’ claim for a publicly funded assistive technology IEE, and Parents’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is ALLOWED.
As noted supra, nothing in this Ruling resolves Parents’ separate claims that Plymouth failed to evaluate Student in all areas of suspected disability or that Student is entitled to compensatory services. Those claims are preserved and will be addressed at the Hearing scheduled to proceed on Augus 27 and 28, 2026, to the extent they fall within the issues bifurcated for later hearing.
ORDERS:
1. Plymouth Public Schools’ Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby DENIED as to Parents’ claims for publicly funded IEEs in the areas of a home FBA, competing-stimuli assessment, and assistive technology evaluation.
2. Parents’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment involving Parents’ claims for publicly funded IEEs in the areas of a home FBA, competing-stimuli assessment, and assistive technology evaluation is hereby ALLOWED.
The matter shall proceed on the remaining bifurcated claims, including Parents’ compensatory-services claims, on August 27 and 28, 2026.
By the Hearing Officer:
Rosa I. Figueroa
Rosa I. Figueroa
Dated: July 31, 2026
I express my gratitude to Erika Gleason, BSEA intern, for her contributions to this ruling.
Footnotes
[1] See Order on Parents’ Motion to Consolidate, BSEA No.2611128 & BSEA No.2612724 (May 5, 2026).
[2] See 34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b); 603 Mass. Code Regs. 28.04(5).
[3] Parents’ list included Velda Scott who would testify regarding the IEE timeline, the District’s alleged failure to respond within the regulatory five-school-day period consistent with 603 CMR 28.04(5)(d) and the PRS finding of noncompliance; Stephanie Marckini would testify regarding the privately obtained home-based FBA, Student’s functional behavioral and social-emotional needs, and recommendations for a competing-stimuli assessment and assistive technology assessment; Tayla LaPlante would testify regarding the school-based FBA conducted at the May School; and Suzanne Hynes would testify regarding receipt and denial of the IEE requests.
[4] In support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, Plymouth submitted exhibits including: emails between Parents and the District dated November 11, 2025; a November 14, 2025 Notice of Proposed School District Action (N-1); a November 14, 2025 Notice of School District Refusal to Act (N2); the Empirical ABA Functional Behavioral Assessment dated February 19, 2026; a November 26, 2025 N1; Parents’ notes from the November 20, 2025 Team meeting; a March 20, 2026 email from Parent to the District; the March 23, 2026 N2; and the District’s September 2024 assistive technology evaluation.
[5] See 603 Mass. Code Regs. 28.04(5)(c)(6).
[6] Parents’ exhibits included the IEP dated October 17, 2025 to October 15, 2026; the Empirical ABA FBA dated February 19, 2026; the May Center FBA dated March 18, 2026; N1s and N2s dated October 24, 2025, November 14, 2025, March 17, 2026, March 23, 2026; emails between Parents and the District; a PRS complaint; hospital imaging and discharge records; the PRS finding dated March 19, 2026; the District’s September 2024 assistive technology evaluation; and the Plymouth School District Special Education Procedural Manual.
[7] See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986); Maldonado-Denis v. Castillo-Rodriguez, 23 F.3d 576, 581 (1st Cir. 1994).
[8] To the extent that either party makes factual allegations unsupported by the evidentiary record, I identify the source of those allegations.
[9] 801 Mass. Code Regs. 1.01(7)(h).
[10] See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; Mass. R. Civ. P. 56; Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247–48; In re: Student v. Bridgewater-Raynham Reg’l Sch. Dist., BSEA No.1303762, 19 MSER 17 (Jan. 18, 2013).
[11] Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255; see also Adickes, 398 U.S. at 157; Maldonado-Denis, 23 F.3d at 581.
[12] Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.
[13] See Reich v. John Alden Life Ins. Co., 126 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 1997).
[14] 34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(1).
[15] Id. § 300.502(b)(2).
[16] Id. § 300.502(b)(3).
[17] 603 Mass. Code Regs. 28.04(5)(d).
[18] 603 CMR § 28.04(5) & (6).
[19] 603 CMR 28.04(6)(d).
[20] See 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.304(c)(4), 300.502(b)(1).
[21] 34 C.F.R. § 300.304(c)(4), (6).
[22] See 34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b); 603 Mass. Code Regs. 28.04(5).
[23] See 603 Mass. Code Regs. 28.04(5)(c)(6).
[24] See 34 C.F.R. § 300.304(c)(4), (6).
[25] See 34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(1); 603 Mass. Code Regs. 28.04(5)(d).
[26] See 34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(1); 603 Mass. Code Regs. 28.04(6)(d).
[27] See Scituate Pub. Schs., BSEA No.09-5506 (allowing summary decision for the district where the district had never conducted the disputed evaluation and there was therefore no district evaluation with which parents disagreed); Abington Pub. Schs, BSEA No.04-3493 (explaining that 603 CMR 28.04(5), read in context, requires the school district to have first conducted an evaluation in the specific disputed area before a parent’s entitlement to a publicly funded IEE arises).
[28] 603 CMR 28.04(6)(d).
[29] By the time PRS found the District to be non-compliant with federal and state special education regulations it was too late for the District to cure the defect.
[30] This determination does not resolve Parents’ separate claims as to whether Plymouth failed to evaluate Student in all areas of suspected disability, or whether Plymouth should have conducted a home FBA in the first instance given the information available to the District at that juncture. Parents’ allegations regarding Plymouth’s refusal to conduct a home FBA (including the justification for such denial), issues involving Student’s difficulties generalizing skills across settings, home-based behavioral presentation, the duty to evaluate and address parental concerns, remain relevant to Parents’ broader evaluation-related, denial of FAPE and compensatory-services claims. Those surviving claims are distinct from the narrow question related to the Parties’ rights and responsibilities regarding public funding for a home FBA.
[31] See 34 C.F.R. § 300.304(c)(4), (6).
[32] See Scituate Pub. Schs., BSEA No. 09-5506; Abington Pub. Schs., BSEA No. 04-3493; Bridgewater-Raynham Reg’l Sch. Dist., BSEA No. 11-6444.
[33] As with the home FBA, this determination does not resolve Parents’ separate claim that Plymouth failed to evaluate Student in all areas of suspected (and/ or known), disability. Parents’ allegations regarding Student’s pica, the recommendation for a competing-stimuli assessment, and Plymouth’s refusal to conduct that assessment remain relevant to Parents’ broader evaluation-related and compensatory-services claims. Those issues are distinct from the narrow question of entitlement to a public funded competing-stimuli assessment IEE and thus survive summary judgment.
[34] See 603 Mass. Code Regs. 28.04(5)(c)(6).
[35] I note that the 16-month argument is inapposite here as such timeframe is limited to requests made under 603 CMR 28.04(5)(c).