In Re: Revere Public Schools BSEA# 26-04601

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS

BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS

In Re: Revere Public Schools 

BSEA# 26-04601

DECISION

This decision is issued pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 USC 1400 et seq.), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 USC 794), the state special education law (MGL c. 71B), the state Administrative Procedure Act (MGL c. 30A), and the regulations promulgated under these statutes. 

A hearing was held via a virtual platform on November 13, 2025 before Hearing Officer Alina Kantor Nir on a Hearing Request filed by Revere Public Schools (Revere or the District) on October 23, 2025. Revere was represented by counsel. Parent was pro se (although her Partner appeared as her representative). Those present for all or part of the proceedings, all of whom agreed to participate virtually, were:

Parent

Parent’s Partner/Parent Representative[1]

Jennifer King                        Attorney for Revere  

Sara Hoomis                        Executive Director for Student Supports, Revere

Rebecca Baron                    Court Reporter

The official record of the hearing consists of documents submitted by Revere and marked as Exhibit S-1; documents submitted by Parent and marked as Exhibits P-1, P-1A through P1-C, P-2A through P-2C, and P-3 through P-10; documents submitted jointly and marked as Exhibits J-1 and J-2; rebuttal document submitted by Revere and marked as Exhibit R-1; approximately 3 hours of oral testimony and argument; and a one-volume transcript produced by a court reporter.  The parties requested, and the Hearing Officer granted, a continuance until December 5, 2025 to allow for submission of written closing arguments,[2] and the record closed on that date.

ISSUES:  [3]

1. Whether Student’s assigned school location constitutes her educational placement; and
2. Whether Student’s parent can invoke stay-put rights to her assigned school location.

FACTUAL FINDINGS:

1. Student is an 8-year-old resident of Revere, Massachusetts. She is eligible for special education services due to a primary educational disability of Autism.  (J-1, P-1) Student is currently enrolled in the third grade at the A.C. Whelan Elementary School (Whelan) in Revere, Massachusetts. (Hoomis) She attends the IGNITE classroom for grades 2-4 at Whelan.  Prior to attending Whelan, Student attended the IGNITE program at Beachmont Elementary School (Beachmont) in Revere. (Parent)

2. IGNITE is a specialized program that helps students develop academic, social, and behavioral skills. Academic instruction is close to grade level, with suitable modifications and accommodations to support neurodiverse learning styles. Students have opportunities for social and academic inclusion as appropriate for each learner. (Hoomis, P-1)

3. Sara Hoomis is the District’s Executive Director for Student Supports. She has served in this role for 3 years. (Hoomis) Ms. Hoomis testified that, as a result of a recent redesign of in-District programming, IGNITE Programs now exist at both Whelan and Beachmont. Before the redesign, Beachmont housed IGNITE classrooms for early childhood and K-1, with students transitioning to the IGNITE classrooms at Whalen for grades 2-5. Following the redesign, Beachmont houses IGNITE classrooms for grades K-1, 2-3, and 4-5, and Whalen houses IGNITE classrooms for grades K-1, 2-4, and 2-5. (Hoomis, S-1) The re-design was undertaken to minimize students’ transportation time. (P-2C)

4. The IGNITE classrooms in each school follow the same curriculum, are staffed by a teacher with a moderate special education license and two paraprofessionals, have a maximum of 12 students, and are supported by speech-language pathologists, occupational therapists, and board-certified behavior analysts (BCBAs). The profile of students in the respective IGNITE programs are similar, and there is “as much inclusion as possible.” School assignments are based on  school zone residence. (Hoomis)

5. On November 26, 2024, the Team met and developed an IEP for the Student for the period November 26, 2024, until November 25, 2025 (November 2024 IEP), with goals and services in the areas of ELA, Mathematics, Speech and Language, Visual Processing, and Social/Emotional/Behavioral. Placement was in a substantially separate classroom (IGNITE) located at Whelan. The November 2024 IEP proposed the following direct services: Math (60 minutes daily), ELA (90 minutes daily), Social Skills (30 minutes daily), Speech and Language (2 x 30 minutes/cycle), and Occupational Therapy (2 x 30 minutes/cycle). ESY was also proposed to focus on academics, social skills, speech, and occupational therapy. (J-1, P-1) According to this  2024 IEP “[Student] requires door-to-door drop-off and pick-up on a smaller vehicle supervised by a monitor.”  Parent accepted the November 2024 IEP and placement  in full. (J-1, P-5)

6. On September 10, 2025, Parent notified Katelyn Ferrari, Whelan’s Special Education Coordinator, that on October 15, 2025, the family planned to move to a different residence in Revere. (P-2A, P-2B)

7. According to District policy, Parent’s move requires that Student be reassigned to Beachmont[4], where she would attend the IGNITE classroom for grades 2-3.  (Hoomis) This classroom is staffed by the same teacher who had previously taught Student while she attended Beachmont. (Parent)

8. Student’s November 2024 IEP is able to be fully implemented at Beachmont. (Hoomis)

9. According to Ms. Ferrari, Parent requested that Student not return to Beachmont, and assured her that she would be able to transport Student should Student be allowed to remain at Whelan.  (P-2A, P-2B)  Based on Parent’s assurance regarding transportation, the District agreed to make an exception to District policy and allow Student to remain at Whelan but requested that Parent complete a “non-neighborhood form” (Revere Non-Neighborhood Application). Ms. Ferrari indicated that she would document “the exception” via an N1. (P-2B)

10. On October 7, 2025, Parent reached out to Richard Galluci, Assistant Superintendent of Revere Public Schools, requesting that Student remain at Whelan, with transportation provided by the District. (P-2A)

11. On October 9, 2025, Assistant Superintendent Galluci spoke with Parent. Parent informed him of a March 2024 bus incident involving Student while Student was attending Beachmont, which she felt had been “swept under the rug” by Beachmont’s administrative staff. According to Parent, this was the reason Parent objected to having Student return to Beachmont.[5] (Parent, P-2B, R-1)   

12. On October 10, 2025, Assistant Superintendent Galluci denied Parent’s request to have Student remain at Whelan if Parent could not provide transportation to and from Whelan. (P-2B)

13. On October 11, 2025, Parent wrote to Assistant Superintendent Galluci, indicating that she had not made any assurance regarding transporting Student.  She also indicated that the change in schools was “invalid” because there had been no Team meeting to discuss it. (Parent, P-2B)

14. On October 13, 2025, Superintendent Diane Kelly wrote to Parent explaining that no Team meeting had been held because Parent had stated she would use the Revere Non-Neighborhood Application and would provide transportation.  Now that she has indicated she cannot provide transportation, a Team meeting will be scheduled. (P-2C) The District agreed to provide interim transportation for Student to Whelan until the scheduling of a Team meeting. Superintendent Kelly described the provision of transportation during such time as an “additional cost” to the District. (P-2C)

15. On or about October 14, 2025, Parent relocated to her expected new residence within Revere.  Said residence was zoned such that Student’s neighborhood school was Beachmont. (P-2B)

16. On October 15, 2025, Student’s doctor, Janet Chua, authored a Letter of Medical Necessity, which Parent submitted to the District on October 17, 2025. In it, Dr. Chua states that it would be “beneficial” for Student to continue her education at Whelan as “[c]hanging the environment can be very difficult and hard” for Student due to her Autism diagnosis. Dr. Chua opined that it was “important” for Student to maintain “the same routine without any disturbances.” (P-1C)

17. On October 20, 2025, the Team convened, and the District proposed an Amendment to the November 2024 IEP, changing “the location of services, while maintaining placement in a substantially separate classroom within the IGNITE program.” According to the N1, the proposed change was made due to Student’s residential relocation. Based on Student’s updated address, her district-zoned IGNITE program was now located at Beachmont. The District therefore rejected continued services at Whelan. The District cited its residency review and neighborhood-school zoning policy, as support for the change.  The District provided Parent with the policy governing non-neighborhood placements at Whelan, which requires submission of a request form and obligates parents to provide transportation if the request is approved. Parent indicated she would not pursue a non-neighborhood placement because she could not meet the transportation requirement.  (J-2) Parent testified that the meeting was brief and focused solely on “zoning” rather than on Student’s individual needs. (Parent, Parent’s Partner)

18. The Team discussed steps to support Student’s transition to Beachmont, recommending a visit to the Beachmont with Student’s current classroom teacher and a meeting with the school administration. Parent indicated that she did not wish to proceed with transition planning. (Hoomis, J-2)[6]  She reported that Student was doing well at Whelan, unlike at her prior placement at Beachmont, where Student had regressed. Parent expressed concern that Student might regress again due to her association of Beachmont with the previous bus incident. (Parent, P-1A)

19.  On October 23, 2025, Revere filed the underlying Hearing Request with the BSEA after notifying Parent. (P-3) Parent indicated that she was asserting stay-put rights to the Whelan placement. (P-10)[7]

20. On November 5, 2025, Dr. Leonard Firer, a colleague of Dr. Chua’s from the same pediatric practice, authored a Letter of Medical Necessity that Parent  provided to the District. Dr. Firer indicated that since overhearing communication regarding a change of schools, Student has demonstrated increased anxiety and regression, including incidents of encopresis and “preoccupation with death consistent with stress-related regression often seen in children with autism when routines or environments feel uncertain.” Dr. Firer recommended “maintaining continuity” in Student’s current school setting “to support her emotional and developmental stability.” (Parent, P-6)

21. According to Parent, Student is thriving at Whelan, where staff and peers provide a consistent and predictable environment that supports her social-emotional regulation and academic progress. Parent testified that Student’s current teacher at Whelan teaches grades 2–4, allowing Student to remain with the same teacher next year and ensuring continuity. By contrast, Student’s former teacher at Beachmont teaches only grades 2–3, which would require an additional classroom transition next school year if Student were reassigned there this school year. (Parent, P-10) Studentenjoys going to school, has close friends at Whelan, and “loves” her teacher. (Parent) Due to Student’s autism diagnosis, Parent is concerned about changing Student’s environment. (Parent, Parent’s Partner) 

22. The peer involved in the March 2024 bus incident  is currently in the same classroom at Whalen and on the same bus as Student. (Hoomis)

LEGAL STANDARDS:

1. Stay-Put

The IDEA’s “stay-put” provision requires that unless the State or local educational agency and the parents otherwise agree, during the time that a parent and school district are engaged in an IDEA dispute resolution process, “… the child shall remain in the then-current educational placement of the child, or, if applying for initial admission to a public school, shall, with the consent of the parents, be placed in the public school program until all such proceedings have been completed.”[8] Preservation of the “status quo” assures that the student “stays-put” in the last placement the parents and the school district agreed was appropriate for her.[9] In addition, the stay-put provision reflects “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.”[10] Generally, the last accepted IEP is the stay-put IEP.[11] To determine a child’s “stay-put,” Courts often look for the “operative placement,” or the IEP that is “actually functioning at the time the dispute first arises.”[12]

It is established law that the “physical school alone does not constitute an ‘educational placement.’ [An] educational placement consists of the instruction and services spelled out in [Student’s] IEP.”[13] According to the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), case-by-case analysis is required to determine whether a change in location materially or substantially alters a student’s program, thereby constituting a change in placement, with the analysis based on whether 1) the IEP is being revised concurrently; 2) Student will be educated with nondisabled peers to the same extent in the new program; 3) Student will have the same opportunities to participate in extracurricular and nonacademic services; and 4) the new location is the same option on the continuum of alternative placements.[14]

In general, Courts have held that a change in placement for this purpose occurs when “a fundamental change in, or elimination of, a basic element of the educational program has occurred,”[15] or when a change in location “results in dilution of the quality of a student’s education or a departure from the student’s LRE [least restrictive environment]-compliant setting.”[16] “[M]inor decision[s] alter[ing] the school day” such as modifications to the method of transportation to and from school or replacing one teacher or aide with another do not constitute changes in placement that would violate the stay put provision.[17] Changes in programs or classrooms do not constitute changes in placement, either, where the school district provides “substantially similar classes.”[18] 

In deciding issues of stay-put, Courts have examined the impact of the proposed change on the student rather than the precise classroom location.[19]  Similarly, the BSEA has applied these principles to identify the “operative placement” as well as to examine the impact on the student of the proposed change.[20]

2. Change in Placement and Prior Written Notice

Parents are an essential part of any group making the placement decision[21] and must receive notice of all meetings where the district proposes to initiate, determine, or change placement.[22]  If a district proposes to initiate a change in placement, it must provide parents with prior written notice.[23] According to 34 C.F.R. § 300.116(b), a student’s placement is determined at least annually; is based on the child’s IEP; and is as close as possible to the child’s home; unless the IEP of a child with a disability requires some other arrangement, the child is educated in the school that he or she would attend if nondisabled. However, the “statutory preference for placement at a neighborhood school is only that—and it does not amount to a mandate.”[24]  “There is at most a preference for education in the neighborhood school.”[25] It is “the content of [a student’s] IEP [that] remains at the heart of [a] matter.”[26]  Moreover, although a parent may “participate” in the school-selection process, she may not “veto” the school district’s choice of location,[27] provided that the selected location can implement the student’s IEP. 

The IDEA and state law require parental consent for initial placements.[28] In Massachusetts, “[w]ritten parental consent shall be obtained … before placing a student in a special education placement subsequent to the initial placement in special education.”[29]

3. Burden of Persuasion

In a due process proceeding, the burden of proof is on the moving party.[30] If the evidence is closely balanced, the moving party will not prevail.[31] In the instant case, Revere bears this burden. 

APPLICATION OF LEGAL STANDARDS:

It is not disputed that Student is a student with a disability who is entitled to special education services under state and federal law. The fundamental issues in dispute are listed under ISSUES IN DISPUTE, above.

Based upon the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing, thoughtful arguments of Counsel and Parent, and a review of the applicable law, I conclude that Revere has met its burden to show that Student’s assigned school location at Beachmont does not constitute a change to Student’s educational placement, and she therefore does not have a right to remain at Whelan. My reasoning follows.

A student’s stay-put right applies to her placement, not the physical location. In November 2024, the Team, with Parent’s consent, determined that IGNITE, a substantially separate classroom, was the appropriate placement. As the last agreed-upon, publicly funded placement before the Hearing Request, IGNITE is the Student’s stay-put placement.

Parent appears to claim that Student’s right to remain at Whelan extends beyond the pendency of the dispute, that moving Student from Whelan constitutes a change in placement for which prior written notice is required, and that she rejects such a change in placement.  Parent’s position, however, improperly “conflate[s] site selection and educational placement.”[32] Here, the District has not proposed a change in placement; rather, it has proposed a change in location due to residential zoning.  Beachmont can implement the accepted IEP and is not a “significant change in the student’s program.”[33] As discussed supra, Student’s placement is in the IGNITE program, not the IGNITE program at Whelan, as Whelan is only the location for the IGNITE program, and another IGNITE program location capable of implementing Student’s IEP (Beachmont),  located within Student’s current residential school zone, is available.[34]  As such, Parent is not entitled to Prior Written Notice, as defined by IDEA, nor to a role in the assignment process in relocating Student from Whelan to Beachmont. Specifically, the District has discretion over the location of classroom or building assignments where there is more than one classroom or building that fits the description for the appropriate educational program for Student.[35]  Such a change in location, rather than a change in placement, does not trigger the Prior Written Notice requirement of the IDEA,[36] nor does it require Parental consent.[37]  Here, no such procedural safeguards were triggered because the transfer from Whelan to Beachmont is a simple change in buildings with no significant changes in Student’s educational program.[38]  

Parent and Student’s doctors assert that because of her autism diagnosis, interruptions to Student’s program may be detrimental, and Student may regress if placed at Beachmont. Although the First Circuit is silent on the issue, in L.M. v. Pinellas Cnty. Sch. Bd., No. 8:10-cv-539-T-33TGW, 110 LRP 28358 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 11, 2010), the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, ruled that despite the parents’ argument that transitions were extremely difficult for their autistic student, and that transitioning from one location to another could affect the student’s ability to learn, the relocation did not amount to a change in her educational placement within the meaning of the stay-put provision.[39]

Furthermore, potential transition concerns do not solely determine whether a move constitutes a change in placement, as transition difficulties alone do not constitute “a fundamental change in, or elimination of, a basic element of the education program” so as to qualify as a change in placement. [40] Thus, while Parent’s concerns are wholly understandable[41], they are challenges that must be anticipated and addressed by the receiving school, particularly as the District has proposed an appropriate transition plan to support Student in the new setting.[42]   Further, while I sympathize with Parent’s argument that Student is attached to peers and staff at Whelan, there is no right to remain with individual providers or peers pursuant to the IDEA.

While Parent and Parent’s Representative emphasized in their respective Closing Arguments that Student is happy and eager to go to Whelan,[43] here, Student’s transfer to Beachmont is occasioned by Parent’s unilateral decision to move to a new residence, rather than by any systemic practices.[44]  Both Whelan and Beachmont house an IGNITE classroom for Student’s grade level. The IGNITE classrooms in each school follow the same curriculum, are staffed by a teacher with a moderate special education license and two paraprofessionals, have a maximum of 12 students, and are supported by speech-language pathologists, occupational therapists, and BCBAs. The profile of students in each IGNITE program is similar, as are the inclusion opportunities. Therefore, Revere has met its burden to show that Student’s assigned school location at Beachmont does not constitute a change to Student’s educational placement, and she therefore does not have a right to remain at Whelan.

ORDER:

Based on the specific facts of this case, moving Student’s assigned school location to Beachmont does not constitute a change in Student’s educational placement, and she therefore does not have a right to remain at Whelan.

By the Hearing Officer:

/s/ Alina Kantor Nir

Alina Kantor Nir

Dated:  December 8, 2025

---

[1] Parent’s Representative’s name is withheld to ensure the confidentiality of Student.

[2] Parent and Parent’s Representative each submitted a Closing Argument. 

[3] The issues stated here are verbatim from the District’s Hearing Request.

[4]  As stated above, Student had attended Beachmont prior to Whelan.

[5] Assistant Superintendent Galluci looked into the bus incident, which was determined to be a singular event in which a peer had a “medical episode” on the bus during which he made contact with Student. According to Parent, Student had a visible bruise following the incident and was terrified of the bus afterwards. (Parent, P-2B, R-1)  Parent transported Student to and from school for three weeks following the incident and “lost trust” in Beachmont. (Parent)

[6] At the meeting, Parent expressed her intention to file with the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA). (J-2)

[7] On the following day, October 24, 2025, Parent also filed her own Hearing Request with the BSEA. On October 27, 2025, the BSEA issued a Notice of Hearing for BSEA #2604600. Parent’s Hearing Request asserted that Whelan was Student’s stay-put placement and asserted additional claims relating to procedural violations by Revere.  Following the joint request of the parties , the Hearing for BSEA #2604600 was postponed until January 26, 2026, for good cause.

[8] 20 U.S.C. §1415(j); see 34 CFR §300.514; M.G.L. c. 71B; 603 CMR 28.08(7); see Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 325 (1988); Verhoven v. Brunswick School Committee, 207 F.3d 1, 10 (1st Cir. 1999); M.R. and J.R. v. Ridley School District, 744 F.3d 112, 117 (3d Cir. 2014); see also In Re: Framingham Public Schools and Quin, BSEA # 1605247 (Reichbach, 2016); In Re: Abington Public Schools, BSEA # 1407763 (Figueroa, 2014).

[9] See Doe v. Brookline School Committee, 722 F.2d 910, 918 (1st Cir. 1983).

[10] Student & Concord & Natick Public Schools (Corrected Ruling on Mother’s Request for “Stay Put” Order), BSEA # 18-00182 (Berman, 2017).

[11] See 20 U.S.C. §1415(j); 34 CFR §300.514.

[12] Drinker v. Colonial Sch. Dist., 73 F.3d 859, 867 (3rd Cir. 1996); Thomas v. Cincinnati Bd. of Edu., 918 F. 2d 618. 626 (6th Cir., 1990).

[13] D.K. v. D.C., 983 F. Supp. 2d 138, 146 (D.D.C. 2013).

[14] Letter to Fisher, 21 IDELR 992 (OSEP 1994).

[15] Sherri A.D. v. Kirby, 975 F.2d 193, 206 (5th Cir. 1992).

[16] A.W. v. Fairfax County Sch. Bd., 372 F.3d 674, 682 (4th Cir. 1991).

[17] G.B. v. Distr. of Columbia, 78 F. Supp. 3d 109, 116 (D.D.C. 2015).

[18] Weil v. Bd. of Elem. & Sec. Educ., 931 F.2d, 1069, 1072 (5th Cir. 1991). 

[19] See A.W., 372 F.3d at 681–83 (concluding that educational placement referred to an “instructional setting” rather than to the “precise location of that setting” or the “precise physical location where the disabled student is educated”). 

[20] See In Re: Agawam Public Schools and Melmark-New England, BSEA # 1504488 (Berman, 2015).

[21] See  34 CFR 300.116 (a)(1); 34 CFR 300.501(c); 71 Fed. Reg. 46585 (2006).

[22] See 34 CFR 300.503.

[23] See 20 USC 1415(b)(3)(A) and 20 USC 1415(c); see also 34 CFR 300.503 (a).

[24] Urban v. Jefferson County Sch. Dist. R–1, 870 F.Supp. 1558, 1568 (D.Colo.1994).

[25] Murray By & Through Murray v. Montrose Cnty. Sch. Dist. RE-1J, 51 F.3d 921, 929 (10th Cir. 1995); see Hudson By & Through Hudson v. Bloomfield Hills Pub. Sch., 910 F. Supp. 1291, 1304 (E.D. Mich. 1995), aff’d,108 F.3d 112 (6th Cir. 1997) (“nothing in the statute or regulations requires a school district to in every instance place a child in the neighborhood school that he/she would attend if not handicapped”); see also Oberti by Oberti v. Bd. of Educ. of Borough of Clementon Sch. Dist.,995 F.2d 1204, 1224 n. 31 (3d Cir.1993) (citing Barnett v. Fairfax Cnty. Sch. Bd., 927 F.2d 146, 153 (4th Cir.1991)) (finding that while a school district must take into account geographical proximity of placement, it is not obligated to place students in their neighborhood schools). 

[26] D.F. v. W. Sch. Corp., 921 F. Supp. 559, 571–72 (S.D. Ind. 1996) (“The physical location of [the school] outside [of a student’s] home school district adds nothing to [a student’s] challenge of the hearing officer and Board of Special Education Appeals decisions”).

[27] Neske v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., No. 19-CV-2933 (VEC), 2019 WL 3531959, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2019).

[28] See 34 CFR 300.300 and 603 CMR 28.07(1)(a).

[29] 603 CMR 28.07(1)(a).

[30] Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 62 (2008).

[31] Id.  (placing the burden of proof in an administrative hearing on the party seeking relief).

[32] White ex rel. White v. Ascension Par. Sch. Bd., 343 F.3d 373, 383 (5th Cir. 2003).

[33] N.D. ex rel. parents acting as guardians ad litem v. Hawaii Dep’t of Educ., 600 F.3d 1104, 1116 (9th Cir. 2010).

[34] Parent’s Representative argues in his Closing Argument that “[a] child who is thriving in her current placement should not be moved based on residency mapping.” Although I appreciate the Parent Representative’s position, I lack authority to intervene in residency-based school assignments unless they affect the Student’s access to a FAPE, which is not the case here.

[35] See Rivas v. Banks, No. 22-CV-10007 (LJL), 2023 WL 8188069, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 27, 2023), reconsideration denied, No. 22-CV-10007 (LJL), 2024 WL 292276 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2024), and aff’d sub nom. Rivas v. Ramos, No. 24-268, 2024 WL 5244849 (2d Cir. Dec. 30, 2024) (where “[t]he Court has already concluded that [the] IEP was substantively adequate,” the district did “not err in assigning S.C. to a school that operated only during ordinary school hours” but could implement his IEP); see also T.Y. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 584 F.3d 412, 419 (2d Cir. 2009) (“’Educational placement’ refers to the general educational program—such as the classes, individualized attention and additional services a child will receive—rather than the ‘bricks and mortar’ of the specific school…. We emphasize that we are not holding that school districts have carte blanche to assign a child to a school that cannot satisfy the IEP’s requirements. We simply hold that an IEP’s failure to identify a specific school location will not constitute a per se procedural violation of the IDEA”).

[36] See Juneau Borough Sch. Dist., 66 IDELR 87 (SEA AK 2015) (because the relocation of an autism program from one elementary school to another within an Alaska district did not substantially alter the educational program of two siblings with autism, the state education department concluded that prior written notice of the change was not required); compare Letter to Lott, 213 IDELR 274 (OSERS 1989) (Substantive changes in placement should be accompanied by an IEP meeting prior to the implementation of those changes); Fairfield-Suisan (CA) Unified Sch. Dist., 79 IDELR 259 (OCR 2021) (A California district may have significantly changed the placement of a middle-schooler with an undisclosed disability on three occasions without first convening a 504 meeting.).

[37] See 603 CMR 28.07(1)(a).

[38] See Letter to Flores, 211 IDELR 233 (OSEP 1980) (where there is no material or substantial change in the educational placement or the provision of a free appropriate public education, “we would expect the public agency’s normal correspondence with affected parents to indicate the conclusion that no substantial change would occur and the basis for that conclusion)”; compare Kevin G. by Jo-Ann G. v. Cranston Sch. Comm., 965 F. Supp. 261, 265 (D.R.I.), aff’d sub nom. Kevin G. by Robert G. v. Cranston Sch. Comm., 130 F.3d 481 (1st Cir. 1997) (“Certainly, in these circumstances, the lack of a nurse at the neighborhood school is the type of special requirement which should override the preference for the neighborhood school”).

[39]  The Court’s analysis focused on the lack of modifications to the student’s general educational program caused by the relocation, which the parents did not assert. Compare P.V. ex rel. Valentin v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., No. 2:11-CV-04027, 2013 WL 618540, at *8 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 19, 2013) (holding that a systemic process of unilaterally transferring students with autism between schools via “upper leveling” violated the IDEA as such decisions were made unilaterally by district directors, without IEP team involvement, parent participation, or advance written notice, reasoning that children with autism typically have difficulty with transitions and changes in routine, thus “we must conclude that under the particular facts of our case, [transferring] students with autism to a separate school building in the school district constitutes a change in their ‘educational placement’ under the IDEA” and ordering the district “to alter its upper-leveling process for children with autism to provide prior written notice and a level of parental participation that complies with the procedural requirements under the IDEA.”).  P.V. ex rel. Valentin v. Sch. Dist. of Phila. is distinguishable from the instant matter as it involved systemic practices rather than a relocation due to parent’s unilateral actions.

[40] Lunceford v. D.C. Bd. of Educ., 745 F.2d 1577, 1582 (D.C.Cir.1984).

[41] In her Closing Argument, Parent stated “[a]t the hearing, the District called the Beachmont bus incident ‘irrelevant’ and even implied it never occurred because [Student] and the other little girl are now friendly…. For a child like [Student], safety and predictable transportation routines are not optional — they are medically necessary. The structured support and door-to-door transportation she receives at Whelan are essential to her emotional regulation and progress.” Although I can appreciate Parent’s frustration with the handling of the bus incident in the past, it is not relevant to the analysis before me.

[42] See Rivas, 2023 WL 8188069, at *9 (dismissing parents’ “concerns regarding the students with whom S.C. would be grouped at his assigned DOE school [as] impermissibly speculative”).

[43] I note that Whelan continues to be an option for Student through the Revere Non-Neighborhood Application process which was offered to Parent.

[44] Compare P.V., 2013 WL 618540 (2013).  Further, maintaining Student at Whelan would be “inconsistent with the IDEA’s requirement that ‘[u]nless the IEP of a child with a disability requires some other arrangement, the child is educated in the school that he or she would attend if nondisabled.’” Douglas v. D.C., 4 F. Supp. 3d 1, 4 (D.D.C. 2013) (quoting and citing to 34 C.F.R. § 300.116(c)).