1. Home
  2. Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) Rulings
  3. In Re: Student & Pittsfield Public Schools BSEA# 26-03909
Searching...

Advanced Search +

In Re: Student & Pittsfield Public Schools BSEA# 26-03909

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS

BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS

In Re: Student & Pittsfield Public Schools

BSEA# 26-03909

RULING ON DISTRICT’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE AND MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE ISSUES

This matter comes before the Hearing Officer on the District’s Motion to Consolidate and Motion for Clarification of the Issues (Motion) filed on October 31, 2025, seeking to consolidate this matter, filed by Parent on October 2, 2025 (Parent Filed Matter) with a matter the District had previously filed involving Student on September 26, 2025, and assigned BSEA# 26-03711 (District Filed Matter).  The Motion also requested clarification of the “timeframe or IEP periods” at issue in the Parent Filed Matter.  As neither Party requested a hearing on the Motion, and because neither testimony nor oral argument would advance the Hearing Officer’s understanding of the issues involved, this Ruling is issued without a hearing, pursuant to Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals (Hearing Rules)Rule VII(D).  For the reasons articulated below, the Motion is ALLOWED in part and DENIED in part. 

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY[1]:

  1. Student currently attends Pittsfield High School pursuant to an IEP that contains the following provisions which Parent claims are not being implemented:
    1. “Academic intervention and communication plan. If [Student] is at risk of failing courses, teachers will notify his parents, guardian and provide a written action plan at least two weeks prior to end (sic) the grading period for both progress reports and report cards. The action plan may include options, such as the afterschool report, alternative assignments extended time or the opportunity to request ….
    2. Communication regarding missed assessments[.  T]eacher will practically communicate any missed assessments, including test and quizzes to both student parent and special education teacher to ensure appropriate follow up and support …
    3. [Student’s] work will be made accessible on canvas …
    4. Refrain from presenting large amounts of work at one time ….
    5. [Student] will receive a weekly session with the Academic Center for Excellence general education academic support teacher to assist with executive functioning skills …”.  (Parent Filed Matter Hearing Request).
  1. On September 12, 2025, Parent emailed “the team” and asked to cancel a “BIP” meeting scheduled for that day.  (Parent Filed Matter Hearing Request).
  1. On September 13, 2025, the District responded to advise Parent it wanted to hold the meeting “with or without [her]”.  (Parent Filed Matter Hearing Request).
  1. On September 13, 2025, Parent emailed the Special Education Director, the Superintendent, the IEP Coordinator, the School Adjustment Counselor and the Vice Principal, advising she felt her son was being targeted, that she believed the District was required to pursue alternative meeting times rather than hold a meeting “with or without [her]” and “request[ing] to go in front of DESE to discuss next steps as I felt targeted as well”.  (Parent Filed Matter Hearing Request).
  1. On September 14, 2025, the District emailed Parent and failed to address her concerns that Student was being targeted.  (Parent Filed Matter Hearing Request).
  1. On September 26, 2025, the District filed a Hearing Request in the District Filed Matter seeking substitute consent for an extended evaluation based on claims that “… [S]tudent was unable to access the curriculum in spite of his IEP supports and services and thus unable to receive a FAPE, despite implementation.”  (Motion).
  1. On October 2, 2025, Parent filed a Hearing Request in the Parent Filed Matter raising the implementation and procedural claims noted supra.  A Notice of Hearing was issued assigning this matter to this undersigned Hearing Officer and scheduling the initial Hearing date for November 6, 2025, with a decision issuance date of December 16, 2025.
  1. On October 29, 2025, the District’s counsel submitted a letter to the undersigned Hearing Officer requesting to consolidate the Parent Filed Matter with the District Filed Matter and indicating the District Filed Matter was assigned to Hearing Officer Sara Berman.  Specifically, the letter advised that the matters involved “the same parties and intertwined issues” and that consolidation was sought “for the sake of time and efficiency”[2].  Hearing Officer Berman was copied on this request.
  1. On October 30, 2025, Parent sent an email indicating “I do not wish to consolidate these matters, as I had previously expressed to the Hearing Officer handling the other matter.  These are two separate matters that I would like to address separately…”. 
  1. On October 30, 2025, the Parties participated in a Conference Call.  Among other discussions, Parent further expanded on her objection to consolidation, indicating that she was concerned that if the matters were consolidated the issues in the Parent Filed Matter would not be fully addressed.  Parent explained her position to be that if Student’s IEP were being implemented, he would be receiving a FAPE and would not need an extended evaluation.
  1. On October 31, 2025, at the joint written request of the Parties, a Ruling on Joint Request to Postpone Hearing and Change Venue (Ruling) was issued postponing the Parent Filed Matter for good cause until November 19 and 20, 2025, to be held in Springfield, Massachusetts, with a new decision-issuance date of December 30, 2025.  This Ruling also required the District to file an updated or supplemental motion(s) prior to the close of business on November 3, 2025 if it continued to seek consolidation of the Parent Filed Matter with the District Filed Matter.  Parent was to respond, if at all, by the close of business on November 7, 2025[3].  Finally, exhibits and witness lists were scheduled to be filed by close of business on November 12, 2025.
  1. On October 31, 2025, the District filed the Motion in the Parent Filed Matter only.  Hearing Officer Berman was not copied on the Motion.
  1. Parent did not file any response to the Motion[4].
  1. I take administrative notice that the District Filed Matter is scheduled to be heard on December 3 and 4, 2025, thereby resulting in a decision-issuance date of December 29, 2025.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS AND DISCUSSION:

  1. Legal Standards:

According to the Scope of Rules section of the Hearing Rules, “unless modified explicitly by these Rules, hearings are conducted under the Formal Standard Adjudicatory Rules of Practice and Procedure, 801 CMR 1.01 et seq.”.  Pursuant to 801 CMR 1.01(7)(h):

“in such cases as there are multiple Adjudicatory Proceedings and where these Adjudicatory Proceedings involve common issues, a Party shall notify the Agency of this fact, stating with particularity the common issues, and the Presiding Officer or Agency may in its discretion consolidate the Proceedings”.

Further, while not bound by the Federal or Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, Hearing Officers are often guided by them.  According to Rule 42, “[i]f actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay”[5].      

  1. Application of Legal Standards:

Here, the District contends that consolidation is warranted as both matters “arose out of the same facts”.  It claims consolidation will serve five purposes, to wit:  conserve administrative resources; avoid inconsistent rulings; eliminate the need for witnesses to testify twice to the same set of facts; avoid scheduling conflicts; and provide a singular forum for discovery issues.  Parent objects based on a concern that consolidation would prejudice the Parent Filed Matter contending that the issues in that matter may not be fully addressed in a consolidated action. 

Based on the District’s arguments and the issues raised in the District Filed Matter it does appear that a substantial amount of the same documentation and witness testimony will be involved in both matters, and thus the interests of administrative efficiency, and use of administrative resources strongly supports consolidation[6].  Contrary to Parent’s contention, consolidation does not create any risk that the issues in the Parent Filed Matter will not be fully considered[7].  Not only is it typical for due process hearings to involve consideration of multiple issues, but, here, Parent’s implementation issue raised in the Parent Filed Matter also relates to the defense she asserts in the District Filed Matter.  Thus, whether the five provisions of Student’s IEP Parent claims not to have been implemented, were implemented, is an essential determination for both matters.  However, the decision on the District Filed Matter is due prior the decision on the Parent Filed matter.  Thus, consolidation also ensures consistency of determinations on the same set of facts and circumstances. 

Further, so as to ensure sufficient time exists for the Parties to fully prepare for the consolidated Hearing, and since the current decision issuance date for the District Filed Matter is prior to the decision issuance date for the Parent Filed Matter, this matter will proceed to hearing in accordance with the hearing schedule of the District Filed matter.  While that hearing is currently scheduled to occur virtually, if either Party seeks to change the venue, it may do so, provided such a request is filed by the close of business on November 13, 2025.    

Finally, I address the District’s request for clarification of the “timeframe or IEP periods”.  Reviewing the Hearing Request in the Parent Filed Matter, in light of both the notice pleading standard that applies to such filings[8], and Parent’s pro se status[9], I do not find clarification is warranted.  Rather, I find that the Hearing Request identifies the five IEP provisions, noted supra, that Parent contends are not being implemented, and also establishes additional allegations noted to have specifically occurred between September 12, 2025 and October 1, 2025.  Such allegations, as drafted, more than sufficiently notify the District of the “timeframes or IEP periods” involved in the Parent Filed matter.      

III.      CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, the District’s Motion to consolidate the Parent Filed Matter with the District Filed Matter and proceed with the consolidated matter on the hearing schedule for the District Filed Matter is ALLOWED.  The District’s Motion’s request to assign the consolidated matter to Hearing Officer Berman and for clarification is DENIED.  Accordingly, the consolidated matter shall proceed as follows:

  1. The Hearing on both BSEA# 26-03711 and 26-03909 will be held virtually, on December 3 and 4, 2025, starting at 10:00 a.m. before the undersigned Hearing Officer.  A virtual link will be provided separately.
  2. Any request for a venue change shall be filed by the close of the business day on November 13, 2025.
  3. Exhibits and witness lists on the consolidated matter are due by close of business on November 25, 2025[10].

The Decision in this matter is due on:  December 29, 2025[11].

The Parties are reminded that all requests for postponement must be in writing and specify the reasons for requesting the postponement and the length of the postponement desired/agreed upon.  Should the Parties reach a settlement agreement prior to the Hearing, the moving party shall submit a written withdrawal of the hearing request.  Failure to appear at the Hearing may result in dismissal of the matter with or without prejudice.  The Parties are encouraged to review the Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals, the BSEA Reference Manual, and the BSEA Pro Se Guide which can be found at https://www.mass.gov/lists/bsea-forms-and-publications.  Technical assistance is also available by contacting the BSEA by phone at 781-397-4750. 

All requests for a stenographer at the Hearing on the merits must be in writing. 

So Ordered by the Hearing Officer,

/s/ Marguerite M. Mitchell

Marguerite M. Mitchell    

Dated: November 12, 2025[12]

[1]    The factual statements set forth are taken as true for purposes of this Ruling only.

[2]   As part of this request, the District also sought to have the consolidated matter heard by Hearing Officer Berman.

[3]   As noted in the Ruling, Parent’s response time was shortened (assuming the District’s submission was filed on November 3, 2025) due to the rescheduled hearing dates, consistent with Hearing Rule VI(C).

[4]   Given that the Motion was filed on October 31, 2025, Parent ultimately had the full amount of response time allotted by Hearing Rule VI(C).

[5]   Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a); Mass.R.Civ.P. 42(a), as amended; see In Re: Frontier Regl. & Union 38 Sch. Dist., BSEA #26-03439 & BSEA #26-03848 (Kantor Nir, 2025) quoting In Re: Mashpee Pub. Schs., BSEA # 080998, BSEA # 081317, and BSEA # 081316, 14 MSER 143 (Crane 2008) (“the balance of considerations favored consolidation for the purposes of the evidentiary hearing with respect to the three students”).

[6]   I also agree with the District that consolidation means witnesses  need only testify at one hearing.

[7]   Notwithstanding, I remain sensitive to Parent’s concerns.  Thus, to ensure all issues raised in the Parent Filed Matter are fully addressed in the consolidated proceeding, I decline the District’s request to have this matter heard by Hearing Officer Berman.  Instead, I will ask the BSEA to administratively consolidate both matters to be heard by me, as the Hearing Officer initially assigned to the Parent Filed Matter.

[8]   Consistent with the Fed.R.Civ.P., hearing requests filed under the IDEA need only consist of “notice pleadings”, i.e., sufficient so as to provide fair notice to the opposing party of the nature of the dispute.  Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); see FRCP 8(a).  However, “[w]hile …. detailed factual allegations” are not necessary, “… a [Parent and Student’s] obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of [their] ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do”.  Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986).

[9]   Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (allegations by pro se parties contained in a hearing request are to be held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers”); Ahmed v. Rosenblatt, 118 F.3d 886, 890 (1st Cir. 1997) (“The policy behind affording pro se plaintiffs liberal interpretation [of their hearing request] is that if they present sufficient facts [to state a claim], the court may intuit the correct cause of action, even if it was imperfectly pled”); In Re: Springfield Pub. Schs., BSEA No. 2203555, 22 MSER 109, (Berman, 2022); see In Re: Easthampton Pub. Sch., BSEA No. 2203513, 28 MSER 35, (Kantor Nir, 2022).

[10]   This is 5 business days before the start of the Hearing in light of the Thanksgiving Day holiday.

[11]   This is 25 days from the Hearing date, now that the District Filed Matter is involved.  See 34 CFR 300.515(a); Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals Rule II(A).

[12]   To ensure completeness of the record, a copy of this Ruling is being forwarded to Hearing Officer Berman for inclusion in the record of BSEA #2603711.

Updated on November 19, 2025

Related Documents