COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Student v. Arlington Public Schools
BSEA# 26-06305
RULING ON ARLINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST CLAIM OF INITIAL HEARING REQUEST
AND
MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED HEARING REQUEST IN ITS ENTIRETY/SUFFICIENCY CHALLENGE
On December 9, 2025, Parent, who is pro se, filed a Hearing Request with the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (“BSEA”) alleging that the Arlington Public Schools (Arlington or the District) failed: to conduct a manifestation determination review (MDR) prior to Student’s removal from school; to provide Student with his IEP and proper supports; to provide Student with educational services during removals; and to convene a Team meeting in response to disciplinary removals and changing educational needs.
On December 16, 2025, Arlington filed Arlington Public Schools’ Motion to Dismiss First Claim of Initial Hearing Request.[1] Specifically, the District moved to dismiss Parent’s first allegation for failure to state a claim, asserting that Student was suspended for only two school days during the current school year, which does not constitute a change of placement under state or federal law and therefore does not trigger a manifestation determination.
On December 18, 2025, Parent filed an Amended Hearing Request with the BSEA, asserting that the “core issue” of her complaint is an alleged “safety crisis” involving an administrator’s repeated use of a racial slur toward Student during an emotional crisis and the District’s failure to implement effective protections, corrective actions, and a safe return plan.
Also on December 18, 2025, Arlington moved to dismiss Parent’s Amended Hearing Request, pursuant to BSEA Hearing Rules I(E) and I(G), because Parent had failed to state claims within the jurisdiction of the BSEA and had failed to plead sufficient facts to support any claims over which the BSEA has jurisdiction (Motion To Dismiss Amended Hearing Request In Its Entirety/Sufficiency Challenge). Specifically, Arlington asserted that the BSEA does not have jurisdiction over claims sounding in general student discipline, school safety, staff misconduct, or alleged civil rights violations, including allegations of discrimination or harassment based on race. Moreover, a hearing request must set forth sufficient facts to state a claim within the BSEA’s jurisdiction, and conclusory statements, generalized allegations, or references to non-IDEA issues are insufficient to confer jurisdiction or warrant a hearing.
On January 5, 2026, Parent wrote to clarify the procedural record and asserted that the Amended Hearing Request was timely and fully compliant with the BSEA’s December 16, 2025 Ruling on Sufficiency, having been filed on December 17, 2025, within the 14-day amendment period. According to Parent, her amendment added detailed factual allegations and the statutory basis for relief. Specifically, the Amended Hearing Request included a factual chronology describing an alleged racial slur by a dean during a disability-related crisis, subsequent emergency removal, and failure to implement the IEP.[2]
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 Bureau of Special Education Appeals Hearing Rule VII(D).
LEGAL STANDARDS AND APPLICATION OF LEGAL STANDARDS:
In applying the legal standards set out infra to the instant matter, I bear in mind that complaints filed by pro se parties, as in the instant matter, are to be construed liberally.[3] As explained by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, “[t]he policy behind affording pro se plaintiffs liberal interpretation 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.”[4] This principle aligns with “[o]ur judicial system [, which] zealously guards the attempts of pro se litigants on their own behalf” while not ignoring the need for compliance with procedural and substantive law.[5]
- Legal Standards:
- Motion to Dismiss
Pursuant to Hearing Rule XVII A and B and 801 CMR 1.01(7)(g)(3)[6], a hearing officer may allow a motion to dismiss if the party requesting the hearing fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. These rules are analogous to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As such, hearing officers have generally used the same standards as the courts in deciding motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. To survive a motion to dismiss, there must exist “factual ‘allegations plausibly suggesting (not merely consistent with)’ an entitlement to relief.”[7] 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.”[8] These “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”[9]
- Jurisdiction of the BSEA
20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6) grants the BSEA jurisdiction over timely complaints filed by a parent/guardian or a school district “with respect to any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child.”[10] In Massachusetts, a parent or a school district, “may request mediation and/or a hearing at any time on any matter[11] concerning 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 students with disabilities.”[12] Nevertheless, it is well established that matters that come before the BSEA must involve a live or current dispute between the Parties.[13] In addition, the BSEA “can only grant relief that is authorized by these statutes and regulations, which generally encompasses orders for changed or additional services, specific placements, additional evaluations, reimbursement for services obtained privately by parents or compensatory services.”[14]
- Sufficiency Challenge
According to BSEA Hearing Rule I(B), the hearing request must contain the following information:
- The name of the child;
- The address of the residence of the child;
- The name of the school the child is attending;
- In the case of a homeless child or youth within the meaning of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 11434a(2)), available contact information for the child, and the name of the school the child is attending;
- A description of the nature of the problem of the child relating to the proposed or refused initiation or change, including facts relating to the problem; and
- A proposed resolution of the problem to the extent known and available to the party at the time.
BSEA Hearing Rule I(E) states that if the non-moving party believes that the hearing request does not contain the elements set out in Rule IB, that party may file a written challenge to the sufficiency of the hearing request with the Hearing Officer and the other party (ies) within fifteen (15) calendar days of receipt of the hearing request.The Hearing Officer shall rule as to the sufficiency of the hearing request within five (5) calendar days. This Rule further provides that if the hearing request is found to be sufficient, the original timelines remain unchanged. If the Hearing Officer finds the hearing request to be insufficient, the moving party may file an amended hearing request with the Hearing Officer and the other party, provided the moving party does so within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the insufficiency ruling. Failure to file the amended hearing request within 14 calendar days (or such other time as ordered by the Hearing Officer) may result in dismissal of the case without prejudice.
- Motion to Dismiss First Claim of Initial Hearing Request is ALLOWED.
The MDR Team must convene within 10 school days of “any decision to change the placement of a child with a disability because of a violation of a code of student conduct.”[15] A change in placement occurs when the removal is for more than 10 consecutive school days; or the child has been subjected to a series of removals that constitute a pattern because the series of removals totals more than 10 school days in a school year; because the child’s behavior is substantially similar to the child’s behavior in previous incidents that resulted in the series of removals; and because of such additional factors as the length of each removal, the total amount of time the child has been removed, and the proximity of the removals to one another.[16]
Here, Parent acknowledges that Student has not been suspended for more than three consecutive days during the 2025-2026 school year. As such, his removal has not triggered the need for a manifestation review. Therefore, there is no relief that the BSEA may grant relative to Parent’s first articulated issue relating to whether the District “failed to conduct a manifestation determination review (MDR) prior to Student’s removal from school,” and, as such, Parent’s first claim in the initial Hearing Request must be DISMISSED.
- Motion To Dismiss Amended Hearing Request In Its Entirety /Sufficiency Challenge Is DENIED.
In the instant matter, Parent asserts thatStudent’s “IEP implementation, disability related services, placement, and IDEA discipline protections are implicated.” She also references “removal related actions,” “exclusions from access,” and “school initiated responses.” Construing Parent’s complaint liberally, as I am required to do, I find that the complaint does not lack sufficiency pursuant to BSEA Hearing Rule I(B)(5). The Amended Hearing Request includes a “factual chronology” describing an alleged racial slur by a dean during a disability-related crisis, subsequent emergency removal, and alleges failure to implement the IEP. Although the Amended Hearing Request does not identify any specific IEP services that were not implemented or any specific provision of the IEP that the District allegedly failed to provide, it provides the District with notice.[17]
Arlington argues that Parent’s Amended Hearing Request primarily challenges disciplinary actions, alleged staff misconduct, and school safety concerns. Specifically, Parent alleges that an administrator repeatedly used a racial slur directed at the Student during an emotional crisis and asserts that the District failed to ensure a safe return to school. According to Arlington, these allegations, even if assumed to be true, do not fall within the BSEA’s jurisdiction. Arlington is correct that the BSEA has no jurisdiction over whether a staff member used inappropriate language, whether the District complied with civil rights laws, or whether school discipline was fair or justified, outside the narrow context of IDEA discipline protections. However, Arlington’s assertion that “to the extent the Parent challenges the District’s disciplinary response or alleges that the Student was excluded from school in an unsafe or inappropriate manner, those claims are not within the BSEA’s jurisdiction and must be dismissed” is not correct if the disciplinary response or exclusion implicates a student’s right to a FAPE. While the BSEA lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate whether a school district’s disciplinary response was appropriate as a matter of school policy, the BSEA has jurisdiction where disciplinary actions or removals from school interfere with a student’s right to a FAPE. As such, Arlington’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Hearing Request is ALLOWED in part and DENIED in part. The Motion is allowed with respect to general school safety or policy but DENIED insofar as the request implicates disciplinary response or exclusion involving the Student’s right to FAPE.
ORDER:
Arlington’s Motion to Dismiss First Claim of Initial Hearing Request is hereby ALLOWED.
Arlington’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Hearing Request is hereby ALLOWED in part and DENIED in part. The Motion is ALLOWED with respect to general school safety or policy considerations, but DENIED insofar as the Amended Hearing Request implicates disciplinary response or exclusion involving Student’s right to a FAPE.
By the Hearing Officer:
/s/ Alina Kantor Nir
Alina Kantor Nir
Dated: January 6, 2026
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 (1st 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).
Confidentiality
In 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] Arlington filed a Sufficiency Challenge as part of this December 16, 2025 Motion to Dismiss which was addressed separately by a prior ruling.
[2] Parent further argued that the matter warrants accelerated status under BSEA Hearing Rule II(D) due to ongoing health and safety concerns, including the District’s failure to implement a safety plan as required by Massachusetts anti-bullying law, alleged constructive removals triggering IDEA protections, and retaliation creating a hostile educational environment. She requested formal acknowledgment that the Amended Hearing Request was timely and sufficient, and asked that a motion conference be promptly scheduled to address the request for accelerated status. As my December 18, 2025 Ruling On Parent’s Request For Accelerated Status For Amended Hearing Request addressed and DENIED Parent’s request for accelerated status, I do not address said request in this Ruling.
[3] See Ahmed v. Rosenblatt, 118 F.3d 886, 890 (1st Cir. 1997).
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Hearing Officers are bound by the BSEA Hearing Rules and the Standard Rules of Adjudicatory Practice and Procedure, 801 Code Mass Regs 1.01.
[7] Iannocchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623, 636 (2008) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007)).
[8] Blank, 420 Mass. at 407.
[9] Golchin v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 460 Mass. 222, 223 (2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
[10] See 34 C.F.R. §300.507(a)(1).
[11] Limited exceptions exist that are not here applicable.
[12] 603 CMR 28.08(3)(a).
[13] See In Re: Student v. Bay Path Reg’l Vocational Tech. High Sch., BSEA # 18-05746 (Figueroa, 2018).
[14] In Re: Georgetown Pub. Sch., BSEA #1405352 (Berman, 2014).
[15] 34 CFR 300.530(e).
[16] See 34 CFR 300.536. Emphasis added.
[17] See Leatherman v. Tarrant Cnty. Narcotics Intel. & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 168 (1993)(“[T]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a claimant to set out in detail the facts upon which he bases his claim. To the contrary, all the Rules require is ‘a short and plain statement of the claim’ that will give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests”) (internal citations and quotations omitted).