COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Marblehead Public Schools v. Student
BSEA# 25-14558 & BSEA# 26-00038
RULING ON PARENT’S AND STUDENT’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAY-PUT
BACKGROUND[1]
Student is a nineteen-year old young adult who is a resident of Marblehead.[2] Student is a bright and capable student who has been diagnosed with multiple disabilities, including Autism Spectrum Disorder as well as several medical conditions that render her psychologically and physically vulnerable. As such, Student has been eligible for special education services throughout her school career, initially from the Cambridge Public Schools, and thereafter from the Marblehead Public Schools (Marblehead or District). Student has attended private, out-of-district day programs funded by these districts since second grade. Beginning in her tenth-grade year (2022-2023) and continuing until June 2025, Student attended the Clearway School in Newton, MA, pursuant to an Individual Education Program (IEP) issued by Marblehead. By June 2025, Student had met all Marblehead’s requirements for graduation with a regular high school diploma. Marblehead asserts that, as such, Student no longer qualifies for special education services from the District.
Parent and Student counter that Student has not received a FAPE during her years at Clearway,[3] is not ready to transition from special education, and requires an additional year of transition-focused services in a therapeutic setting. At issue here is whether Student is entitled to “stay-put” at Clearway pending resolution of the underlying hearing request.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On June 13, 2025, Marblehead filed a Hearing Request before the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA), which was assigned Case No. 2514558. An initial hearing date was scheduled for July 3, 2025. On June 23, 2025, Parent and Student filed a Response to Marblehead Public Schools’ Request for Hearing and Counterclaims, in which Parent and Student disputed Marblehead’s claim that Student had met graduation requirements and made numerous requests for relief. Parent also requested the Hearing Officer to designate Clearway as Student’s “stay put” placement pending conclusion of this appeal. Pursuant to an Order dated June 26, 2025, Parent’s/Student’s Response and Counterclaims have been construed as a separate hearing request by Parent/Student, have been assigned BSEA Case No. 2600038, and were consolidated with the District’s hearing request for purposes of scheduling. The hearing on the consolidated matter is scheduled for September 10 and 11, 2025.[4]
On July 9, 2025, Parent/Student filed the Family’s Emergency Motion for Stay Put (Motion) that is the subject of this Ruling. Marblehead filed its Opposition thereto on July 21, 2025.
Because I have determined that neither testimony nor oral argument would advance my understanding of the issues to be decided regarding the Motion, I issue the instant Ruling on the Motion based solely on the parties’ written submissions.
FACTUAL SUMMARY
For purposes of this Ruling only, the following factual statements, gleaned from the parties’ submissions, appear to be undisputed.
- Student is a nineteen-year-old woman who lives with Parent in Marblehead, MA. She has been eligible for special education and related services from Marblehead on the basis of multiple disabilities, including Autism Spectrum Disorder, neurological, and health impairments. Student is hard-working and conscientious, has strong cognitive and academic skills, and aspires to attend college. During her twelfth-grade year, however, the stress of potential loss of special education eligibility has exacerbated her medical conditions and adversely affected her physical and mental health.
- Student has attended out-of-district placements since second grade. Beginning in tenth grade (2022-2023), Student attended Clearway School, a DESE-approved private day school in Newton, MA, pursuant to IEPs issued by Marblehead.
- Student has passed MCAS examinations in Biology (in 2022) English Language Arts, and Math (in 2023) with scores in the “meeting expectations” range, and, as such, has met graduation requirements in these subjects. Student has also met Marblehead’s academic coursework requirements for graduation.[5]
- After a Team meeting in March 2025, Marblehead issued an IEP covering March 2025 to June 30, 2025. This IEP proposed continued placement at Clearway and contained a projected graduation date of June 12, 2025. On April 28, 2025, Parent accepted the services and placement set forth in this IEP for purposes of implementation, but partially rejected multiple portions as inadequate or incorrect, asserted “stay put” rights to services that had been reduced or eliminated, stated that the IEP did not contain sufficient supports to provide Student with FAPE, further stated that “I also do not agree that she has been adequately prepared for a transition to work or college and therefore will be rejecting the end date,” and, lastly, stated “I reject the proposed graduation date of June 12, 2025, as [Student] does not have the skills needed to be prepared for independent living, full time college, or employment.” (Emergency Motion, Exhibit 1)
- On May 4, 2025, Parent sent an emailed message to Marblehead, stating that she and Student were “refusing graduation and choosing to utilize stay put rights to Clearway for a 13th year.”
POSITION OF PARENT/STUDENT
Under the stay-put doctrine articulated in relevant statutory and case law, Student has the right to remain in her current placement at Clearway until the litigation in this matter is completed.
POSITION OF MARBLEHEAD
Student has fulfilled all graduation requirements for Marblehead, has received a regular high school diploma, and, as such, is no longer eligible for special education services.[6] At most, if Student demonstrates that she was denied a FAPE during the period covered by rejected or partially rejected IEPs within the statute of limitations, period, she may be eligible for compensatory services.
DISCUSSION
Legal Framework, Stay-Put Rule
The stay-put rule is a fundamental procedural protection afforded parents and students by the IDEA and the Massachusetts special education statute, G.L. c. 71B. “Stay-put” means that during the time that the parent and school district are engaged in the IDEA dispute resolution process, “unless the State or local educational agency and the parents otherwise agree, the child shall remain in the then-current educational placement of the child…” 20 U.S.C. Sec 1415(j); 34 CFR Sec. 300.514; Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988); Doe v. Brookline School Committee, 722 f.2d 910, 918 (1st Cir, 1983); Verhoven v. Brunswick School Committee, 207 F.3d 1,10 (1st Cir. 1999).
Massachusetts special education regulations track the federal language, stating that “in accordance with state and federal law, during the pendency of any dispute regarding placement or services, the eligible student shall remain in his or her then educational program and placement unless the parents and the school district agree otherwise.” 603 CMR 28.08(7).
The purpose of stay-put is to protect students from unilateral changes in placement by school districts and to reflect the preference of Congress for maintaining the stability of a disabled child’s placement and minimizing disruption to the child while the parents and school are resolving disputes. Verhoven, supra. The BSEA has articulated this principle in numerous decisions and rulings. See, for example, In Re: Boston Public Schools, Ruling on Parent’s Emergency Motion for Stay Put Clarification, BSEA Nos. 1401653, 1503083 (Figueroa, 2015); In Re: Abington Public Schools, Ruling on Father’s Motion for Clarification of Stay Put, BSEA No. 140776320 (Figueroa, 2014); In Re: Student v. Agawam Public Schools & Melmark New England, Ruling on Parents’ Motion to Enforce Stay Put, BSEA No. 1504488 (Berman, 2015); In Re Framingham Public Schools and Quin, BSEA No. 1605247; (Reichbach, 2016); In Re: Chelmsford Public Schools v. Swansea Wood School, BSEA No. 2203132 (Kantor Nir, 2021); In Re: Student v. N. Middlesex RSD & Dr. Franklin Perkins School, BSEA No. 2400589 (Kantor Nir, 2023);
Stay Put and High School Graduation
The Massachusetts special education statute, MGL c. 71B, §1, restricts special education eligibility to students who have not yet received a high school diploma or equivalent. The implementing regulations contain similar language.[7] 603 CMR 28.02(9). As such, once an eligible student has graduated with a “regular” high school diploma, the student’s eligibility for special education ceases. In Massachusetts, the minimum qualifications for graduation are successful completion of local course requirements and achieving passing MCAS scores. MGL c. 69, §1D; Doe v. Marlborough Public Schools, 54 IDELR 283 (D. Mass., 2010). A district is not required to graduate a student with disabilities who meets these minimum requirements, however; graduation may be disputed when a student alleges a denial of FAPE. Id.
It is well settled that because graduation with a regular diploma ends special education eligibility, it constitutes a change in placement. As the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court stated in Richard Stock v. Mass. Hospital School, et al.392 Mass, 205 (1984), “…graduation, because it will cause the termination of a student’s participation in special education programs, can hardly be characterized as anything other than a change in placement.” Id., at 210. As such, prior to graduating an eligible student, a school district must afford that student the same procedural protections applicable to any other change in placement, including advance notice of the planned graduation, and an opportunity to contest the decision to graduate at a due process hearing. Stock, supra, at 212; Doe v. Marlborough, supra.
These procedural protections also include a student’s right to “stay put” in the last agreed placement. DOE v. Marlborough, supra. See also In Re: Student v. Peabody Public Schools, BSEA NO. 24-15336 (Kantor Nir 2024); In Re: Student v. Boston Public Schools, BSEA No. 2403492 (Figueroa, 2024); In Re: Student v. Reading Public Schools, BSEA No. 2008819 (Mitchell, 2020).
The District points to an Administrative Advisory issued by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE), Administrative Advisory SPED 2018-2, Secondary Transition Services and Graduation with a High School Diploma, for the proposition that “[a] parent or student with decision-making authority may not unilaterally “refuse a diploma for which all requirements are met.” While the Advisory does contain this statement, it also goes on to state the following:
They may, however, reject the final IEP on the basis that the student did not receive FAPE. If this occurs, the student and district have opportunities to resolve the disagreement through mediation or formal dispute resolution procedures…including filing a due process complaint…with the BSEA. During the pendency of such a dispute, school districts must follow stay-put procedures by retaining the student in the current program and placement unless the school district and the parent or student with decision-making authority agree otherwise. Id. (Emphasis supplied)
Application of Law to Facts in This Case
In the instant case, Marblehead issued Student’s most recent IEP on March 27, 2025. This IEP was to expire on June 30, 2025 and specified an anticipated graduation date of June 12, 2025. Parent partially rejected this IEP, on April 28, 2025, asserting that it was not reasonably calculated to provide Student with a FAPE, and rejecting the “end date.” Subsequently, on May 4, 2025, Parent communicated to the District that she and Student were “refusing graduation and choosing to utilize stay put rights to Clearway for a 13th year.” Because Parent rejected the final IEP well prior to the graduation date listed in the proposed IEP, and explicitly rejected termination of services and the proposed graduation date, Student is entitled to “stay put” at her last agreed placement, namely, Clearway, pending final resolution of these consolidated matters.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, Student’s stay-put placement pending appeal is the Clearway School, unless the parties agree otherwise.
By the Hearing Officer:
/s/ Sara Berman
Sara Berman
Dated: July 25, 2025
[1] Factual assertions in this Ruling are gleaned from the parties’ written submissions, including exhibits, and are deemed to be true and accurate for purposes of this Ruling only.
[2] Student has delegated educational decision-making authority to Parent.
[3] The final two IEPs were partially rejected prior to the expiration dates.
[4] On June 25, 2025, Parent/Student filed an assented-to request to postpone the initial hearing date due to unavailability. After a conference call on June 26, 2025, I issued an Order granting the postponement request for good cause, and scheduling previously agreed-upon new hearing dates of August 20 and 21, 2025, and September 10 and 11, 2025. On July 7, 2025, counsel for the District reported that its witnesses would not be available on August 20 and 21 and requested postponement of the hearing to September 10 and 11, 2025. Parent/Student objected to postponement, and subsequently requested that the hearing be advanced to proceed on the original date for Parent’s/Student’s Hearing Request, July 28, 2025. Marblehead objected to advancement and requested postponement of the entire consolidated matter to September 10 and 11, 2025. After two conference calls, and careful consideration of Parent’s/Student’s objections to postponement, I granted the District’s postponement request and assigned dates of September 10 and 11, 2025.
[5] Parent/Student dispute whether Student actually met some of these requirements.
[6] Upon further discussion, it is unclear whether Student actually received a diploma, but whether or not Student received such a document is immaterial for “stay put” purposes.
[7] Applicable Federal regulations do not require states to provide special education services to students who have received a high school diploma. 34 CFR §300.122(a)(3)(1).