COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Student & Boston Public Schools and The Department
BSEA #24-11357
of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)
RULING ON DESE’S MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION OF RULING AND PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED HEARING REQUEST
This matter comes before the Hearing Officer on the Response and Objections of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education to Amended Hearing Request, Motion for Reconsideration of Ruling and Partial Motion to Dismiss Amended Hearing Request (hereinafter DESE’s Motions) filed with the BSEA on August 30, 2024. Said Motions seek reconsideration of my July 24, 2024 Ruling on DESE’s Partial Motion to Dismiss (Prior Ruling) with regard to Issue 3 in the original Hearing Request, and dismissal of the “Issues in Dispute” (Issue or Issues) numbered 3, 4 and 5, and “Requests for Relief” (Request or Requests) numbered 3 and 4 of Student’s Amended Hearing Request (collectively, the Amended Claims) [1].
For the reasons articulated below, DESE’s Motions are DENIED.
RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY[2]
In accordance with the Prior Ruling, on August 7, 2024, Student filed Student’s Amended Request for Hearing (Amended Hearing Request) that contains the disputed Amended Claims. Also, in accordance with the Prior Ruling, on August 9, 2024, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) filed [DESE’s] Notice of Intent to Object advising it intends to object to the Amended Hearing Request. Thereafter, on August 30, 2024, DESE filed DESE’s Motions, that, as noted above, sought reconsideration of the Prior Ruling’s determination regarding Issue 3 in the original Hearing Request which remained unchanged in the Amended Hearing Request,and dismissal of Issues 3, 4 and 5 and Requests 3 and 4 of the Amended Hearing Request[3].
Finally, on September 4, 2024, Student filed Student’s Opposition to DESE’s Partial Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Reconsideration (Opposition).
POSITION OF THE PARTIES[4]
DESE asserts that the BSEA lacks jurisdiction over the Amended Claims, as despite them now containing wording specific to Student, they still involve systemic claims made on behalf of a class of similarly situated students to Student (namely students eligible for special education who are also confined to County Houses of Correction (CHCs)) and seek determinations about DESE’s general obligations to comply with state special education laws “unrelated to the specific question of implementation of this particular Student’s IEP”. DESE relies on portions of the Prior Ruling in support of its Motions.
DESE also seeks reconsideration of the portion of the Prior Ruling that characterized Issue 3 as “an individual-based claim of the claims raised in Issue 6 [of the Hearing Request]”. DESE contends that Issue 3 is “unnecessary” as it is encompassed by the Student-specific claims in Issues 1 and 2 which DESE has never sought to have dismissed, arguing that in order to address Issues 1 and 2, a determination as to whether DESE “fulfilled its obligations under G.L. C. 71B §11A” as to Student must be made. Thus, “[a]s framed, Issue 3 [ ] adds nothing to the analysis of the Student-specific claims presented in Issues 1 and 2”. Further DESE argues that Issue 3 should be dismissed as duplicative to claims pending before the Superior Court in the Class Action Lawsuit (as that term is defined in the Prior Ruling) filed against DESE involving Student and others[5], because Issue 3 requires a determination:
“… as to whether, as a general matter, DESE is required to provide all special education services to students incarcerated in [County Houses of Correction (CHCs)] and who have IEPS, or whether DESE may assign some of that responsibility to school districts pursuant to 603 CMR 28.06(9)” (emphasis in original).
Finally, as to the request to dismiss Issues 4 and 5, DESE submits that despite allegedly minor wording changes to these issues in the Amended Hearing Request to articulate specific reference to Student rather than to a class or group of students, “the essence” of the claims made in both of these issues is not any different from the issues dismissed with prejudice in the Prior Ruling. According to DESE, Issues 4 and 5 still focus on DESE’s broad statutory and regulatory obligations rather than whether DESE has met the specific “special education needs of this Student … ” (emphasis in original). Issues 4 and 5, therefore, “remain ‘systemic’ issues” over which the BSEA lacks jurisdiction.
In support of this argument, DESE points to the fact that the Class Action Lawsuit contains systemic claims that are substantially similar or mostly identical in wording to Issues 4 and 5, as amended. Further, specifically as to Issue 5, DESE contends that although the revised wording seeks a determination as to whether the “application of” the identified regulatory provision has denied Student a FAPE (rather than the original wording that sought a determination as to whether the regulatory provision in question “improperly abdicated” DESE’s statutory duty to provide special education services to a group of students), such revision “does not meaningfully change the systemic nature of this issue”. Thus, even as revised, Issue 5 still requires a determination of the validity of the challenged regulatory provision, and whether DESE can properly assign special education responsibilities to districts generally “… — an issue that affects all students incarcerated in CHCs …” (emphasis in original).
Student disagrees that his Amended Hearing Request asserts any claims involving other students. Rather, he submits that he has now only alleged that DESE has failed to provide him with a FAPE or with the services in his last-accepted IEP and that all Requests for Relief seek relief only for himself. According to Student, although consideration of these claims may implicate the “manner in which DESE provides special education in CHCs”, this does not place these claims outside the BSEA’s jurisdiction as they involve the provision of a FAPE and the special education services for only Student. Student also argues that, as the Prior Ruling properly reasoned, the BSEA has jurisdiction to consider “… the policies and procedures that DESE has in place for addressing, and the legal framework governing the provision of special education to a [specific] student…. The BSEA’s task in cases like these would be impossible if that were not true.” Thus, although an analysis of DESE’s general compliance with legal and regulatory requirements is involved in determining if Student received a FAPE, this does not make the issues in the Amended Hearing Request that reference these requirements beyond the BSEA’s jurisdiction.
Further, Student contends that the existence of the Class Action Lawsuit has “no effect” on the BSEA’s determination as to whether Student is being denied a FAPE. Finally, as to DESE’s request to reconsider the determination regarding Issue 3, Student notes that there is no right to reconsideration of a Ruling on a dispositive Motion or Decision in the BSEA Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals (Hearing Rules), and the Parties received notice of this in the attachment provided with the Prior Ruling, entitled “Effect of Final BSEA Actions and Rights of Appeal”. To the extent that reconsideration may be considered, Student submits that, since DESE did not seek dismissal of Issue 3 from the original Hearing Request, it cannot use the vehicle of a motion for reconsideration to correct its pleading error. Moreover, the standard for undertaking reconsideration has not been met, as DESE has not alleged any “extraordinary circumstances” relating to Issue 3, in seeking reconsideration.
LEGAL STANDARDS
- Motions to Dismiss and Jurisdiction of the BSEA.
As I previously explained in the Prior Ruling, pursuant to Hearing Rules XVI(A) and (B) and 801 CMR 1.01(7)(g)(3), a hearing officer may allow a motion to dismiss for several reasons, including lack of BSEA jurisdiction over a claim, or if the party requesting the hearing fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted[6]. 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].
Unlike a court with general jurisdiction, the BSEA may consider only those claims for which enabling statutes and regulations expressly grant authority”[9]. Thus, claims that do not fall under these laws and regulations must be dismissed as beyond the jurisdictional authority of the BSEA[10]. Special education eligible students with disabilities who are incarcerated in CHCs have a right to a FAPE and to receive special education services from DESE and local school districts, among other entities[11]. In such a case, while certain exceptions exist as to the applicability of some of the rights protected by the IDEA with respect to certain eligible students in adult correctional facilities, they do not apply here[12]. Reference is made to the Prior Ruling for a more detailed explanation of these legal standards.
- Requests for Reconsideration.
The IDEA provides that due process hearing decisions are “final”[13], and the BSEA’s own Hearing Rules support this by requiring that the decision of a BSEA Hearing Officer is “the final decision of the BSEA and is not subject to further agency review. Motions to reconsider … are not permitted” (emphasis added)[14]. Moreover, dismissals of issues “with prejudice” means that “the issues litigated and/or raised in the hearing request are closed and cannot be reopened/relitigated in subsequent cases before the BSEA”[15]. Thus, such dismissals are also prohibited from being reconsidered. As part of the BSEA’s general practice, and consistent with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act with regard to agencies’ obligations of notification about rights to review or appeals of decisions and the time limits to do so[16], parties are notified of this prohibition when such Rulings are issued. A document entitled Effect of Final BSEA Actions and Rights of Appeal, accompanies all decisions and substantive rulings issued by the BSEA, including whenever some or all claims are dismissed “with prejudice”, as was the case in the instant matter with the Prior Ruling.
Guided by this legal authority, I turn to the Partial Motion.
APPLICATION OF LEGAL STANDARDS
After reviewing DESE’s Motions and the Opposition in the light most favorable to Student, the non-moving party, I find that the BSEA has jurisdiction over all claims set forth in the Amended Hearing Request, including the Amended Claims, and that reconsideration of Issue 3 and dismissal of the Amended Claims is not warranted. Unlike the wording of the claims in the original Hearing Request that were dismissed with prejudice, for failing to include references or allegations specific to Student, all claims in the Amended Hearing Request, including but not limited to the Amended Claims, pertain only to Student and his individual circumstances. In the Prior Ruling, I was clear that my decision to dismiss claims was based solely on my analysis of those claims “as presented”, and that should claims specific only to Student be subsequently made, the jurisdictional issues would be resolved[17]. As Student has corrected the dispositive drafting error associated with the dismissed claims in the original Hearing Request, and now makes only Student-specific claims, DESE’s request to dismiss these claims now must fail.
I first address DESE’s request for reconsideration of Issue 3. Since Issue 3 was not dismissed with prejudice in the Prior Ruling it arguably is not subject to the prohibition against reconsideration of dispositive rulings and decisions, under both the IDEA or the Hearing Rules[18]. However, DESE’s reason for seeking reconsideration of the Prior Ruling’s determination that Issue 3 is an “individual-based” claim, is premised on its contention that Issue 3 should be dismissed for the same reasons that DESE seeks dismissal of Issue 4 and 5 – namely, that these issues are, despite their wording, actually systemic in nature. Thus, I consider Issue 3 in the context of the Motion to Dismiss.
I have always interpreted Issue 3, as worded, to be an individual not a systemic claim. DESE’s Motions, do not cause me to think otherwise. As Student acknowledges in his Opposition, he is “… [now] assert[ing] claims regarding how, as relevant here, DESE has failed to provide him –and only him – with a [FAPE] and to provide him the services mandated by his last-accepted IEP” (emphasis added). Further, although aspects of Issue 3 may be incorporated within Issues 1 and 2, this does not, on its own, create grounds for dismissal of Issue 3, since, as an individual claim, it is within the jurisdiction of the BSEA to consider[19].
As to Issue 4, while DESE is correct that the only revision made to this Issue involved changing the phrase “students with disabilities who are confirmed in [CHCs]” to “this Student while he is confined in the [CHC]”, such revision was sufficient to convert Issue 4 from a systemic to an individual claim. Further, although analysis of DESE’s general legal obligations for students incarcerated in CHCs may be a necessary component of my decision about this Issue, this does not mean that this Student specific claim is outside the BSEA’s jurisdiction.
As I have previously determined in the Prior Ruling, I agree with Student that the BSEA has jurisdiction over claims involving consideration of DESE’s general statutory and regulatory requirements for students incarcerated in CHCs, and DESE’s systemic application of its adopted policies and procedures to meet these requirements, in the context of determining if DESE has met its legal obligations to an individual student. As I previously reasoned,
“… The BSEA has jurisdiction to consider the application of the special education laws and regulations generally applicable to students with disabilities who are incarcerated in CHCs, in the context of the specific facts of an individual student’s circumstances. The BSEA also has jurisdiction to consider the implementation of these laws and regulations with respect to a specific student, by the agencies and entities responsible for providing a FAPE to such students, including but not limited to DESE[20]”.
Finally, Issue 5 as originally worded sought a determination as to whether adoption of a regulatory provision “improperly abdicate[d]” DESE’s statutory duties to provide special education services to an identified group of students, whereas the revision to Issue 5 seeks a determination as to whether the “application of” that regulatory provision denied Student a FAPE. Although, as DESE correctly points out, the BSEA lacks jurisdiction to interpret the validity of a statutory or regulatory provision, the BSEA routinely addresses issues of whether or not a responding party (inclusive of a district, DESE or other state agency) is acting in compliance with its statutory and regulatory obligations with respect to providing special education to a specific student. Doing so necessitates an examination and analysis of those legal obligations generally, and a determination as to how they have been implemented in the context of the specific circumstances pertaining to the individual student. Thus, I find Issue 5, as revised, to be different both in wording an substance, given that in that it no longer seeks a determination as to whether or not DESE “improperly abdicated” a legal obligation to a group of students, but instead now seeks a determination as to how the “application of” DESE’s legal obligations under a specific regulation have impacted Students receipt of a FAPE.
Since I find that Issues 3, 4 and 5 of the Amended Hearing Request as presented fall within the jurisdiction of the BSEA to review, it follows that Requests 3 and 4, as they relate to these Issues, are also appropriate. DESE’s Motions are therefore denied.
ORDER
DESE’s Motions are DENIED. Issues 3, 4 and 5 and Requests 3 and 4 are not dismissed, and the Amended Hearing Request is allowed. Accordingly, this matter shall proceed to Hearing on the Amended Hearing Request on September 23, 24 and 25, 2024 as per my July 17, 2024 Ruling, unless further postponed for good cause[21].
By the Hearing Officer,
/s/ Marguerite M. Mitchell
Marguerite M. Mitchell
Date: September 13, 2024
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] Page 2 of DESE’s Motions indicates in one place that it seeks dismissal of Request for Relief #5, as well, however throughout the remainder of DESE’s Motions DESE advises it only seeks dismissal of Request for Relief 3 and 4. I consider the sole reference to Request for Relief #5 to be a typographical error and do not consider it for dismissal.
[2] A detailed summary of relevant procedural history was set forth in my Prior Ruling and will not be repeated here. The Parties are directed to that Prior Ruling for reference. This Ruling will only address relevant procedural history since issuance of the Prior Ruling.
[3] Issues 3, 4 and 5 are as follows:
3. Is MADESE required by G.L. c.71b sec. 11a to provide the student with direct special education services as stated on the student’s last accepted IEP?
4. Is MADESE required to create, maintain, supervise and administer a system that provides FAPE to this Student, while he is confined in the Houses of Corrections?
5. Has the application of 603 CMR 28.06(9) denied this Student a free and appropriate public education?
Requests 3 and 4 are as follows:
3. The Hearing Officer find that MADESE has failed to provide [Student] with a free and appropriate public education in violation of the duty imposed on MADESE by G.L. c. 71B, § 11A to directly provide special education services in the County Houses of Correction; and
4. The Hearing Officer should find that the system of administration of services to eligible students in County Houses of Correction has resulted in a denial of a free and appropriate public education to [Student].
[4] Reference is made to the Prior Ruling for a detailed factual background, and the factual statements contained therein are adopted here for purposes of this Ruling as well. No Party has provided any updated factual statements or allegations that are relevant to the underlying issues involved in this Ruling.
[5] Additional information regarding this Class Action Lawsuit is set forth on page 2 of the Prior Ruling.
[6] As these rules/regulations are analogous to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hearing officers are generally guided by federal court decisions in deciding such motions.
[7] Iannocchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623, 636 (2008) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007)) (The opposing party then must show “factual allegations … enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level… [based] on the assumption that all the allegations in the [hearing request] (even if doubtful in fact) ….” are true.); see Ocasio-Hernandez v. Fortuno-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011).
[8] Blank v. Chelmsford Ob/Gyn, P.C., 420 Mass. 404, 407 (1995); See Nollet v. Justices of the Trial Court of Mass., 83 F.Supp.2d 204, 208 (D.Mass. 2000), aff’d, 248 F.3d 1127 (1st Cir. 2000) (“[w]hen ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the [hearing officer] may consider only the facts alleged in the pleadings, documents attached as exhibits or incorporated by reference in the complaint, and matters of which [administrative] notice may be taken”).
[9] See Globe Newspaper Co. v. Beacon Hill Architectural Comm., 421 Mass. 570, 586 (1996) “Any judicial review of agency action embodies the principle that an agency has no inherent authority beyond its enabling act and therefore it may do nothing that contradicts such legislation”.
[10] 20 USC §1415(b)(6); see 34 CFR 300.507(a)(1); M.G.L. c. 71B §2A (authorizing the BSEA to resolve all special education disputes concerning “…(i) any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, education program or educational placement of a child with a disability or the provision of a free and appropriate public education to the child arising under this chapter and regulations promulgated hereunder or under the [IDEA], 20 U.S.C. section 1400 et seq., and its regulations; or (ii) a student’s rights under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. section 794, and its regulations”); 603 CMR 28.08(3)(a) (authorizing the BSEA to hear “… any matter concerning the eligibility, evaluation, placement, IEP, provision of special education in accordance with state and federal law or the procedural protections of state and federal law for students with disabilities”).
[11] M.G.L. c. 71B §11A; 34 CFR 300.2(b)(1)(iv); 603 CMR 28.06(9); see M.G.L. c. 71B §1; Letter to Colleague (OSERS, December 5, 2014); Letter to Yudien, (OSERS, August 19, 2003). See also In Re: Student and Quincy Public Schools and Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, BSEA #2408249 (Ruling, Mitchell, 2024), specifically, Section 3 under “Legal Standards” and Section II, under “Application of Legal Standards”.
[12] 34 CFR 300.102(a)(2); 34 CFR 300.324(d); see Letter to Duncan, (OSERS, January 29, 2019). Also, note that the IDEA requirements to be provided with transition planning or transition services do not apply for eligible students who will have aged out of eligibility prior to being released from prison, after considering their sentence and eligibility for early release. Further, if there is a “bona fide security or compelling penological interest that cannot otherwise be accommodated”, an IEP team may modify an IEP of an eligible student in an adult prison, provided the modifications do not otherwise fail to address all required elements of an IEP or fail to comply with the LRE requirements of the IDEA.
[13] 20 USC 1415(i)(1)(A) (“A decision made in a hearing conducted pursuant to subsection (f) or (k) shall be final, except that any party involved in such hearing may appeal such decision under the provisions of [20 USC 1415] subsection (g) and paragraph (2)”); 34 CFR 300.514(a) (“A decision made in a hearing conducted pursuant to [34 CFR] §§300.507 through 300.513 or §§300.530 through 300.534 is final …”); see M.G.L. c. 30A §14 (“… any person or appointing authority aggrieved by a final decision of any agency in an adjudicatory proceeding, whether such decision is affirmative or negative in form, shall be entitled to a judicial review thereof”).
[14] Hearing Rule XII(B).
[15] Hearing Rule XVI(A).
[16] M.G.L. c 30A §11(8). Also note that the “Scope of Rules” section of the BSEA Hearing Rules, the BSEA Hearing Rules are “governed by 603 CMR 28.00, federal due process procedures and the Massachusetts Administrative Procedure Act, M.G.L. c. 30A”.
[17] I also noted at Footnote 30 that all such Student-specific claims, if presented, would “… therefore, be different claims than those raised in the Class Action [Lawsuit], thereby avoiding simultaneous pendency concerns raised by DESE.”
[18] 20 USC 1415(i)(1)(A); 34 CFR 300.514(a); Hearing Rule XII(B); see M.G.L. c. 30A §14.
[19] 801 CMR 1.01(7)(g)(3); Hearing Rules XVI(A) and (B); see 20 USC §1415(b)(6); 34 CFR 300.507(a)(1); M.G.L. c. 71B §2A; 603 CMR 28.08(3)(a).
[20] See 20 USC §1415(b)(6); M.G.L. c. 71B §2A; 34 CFR 300.507(a)(1); 603 CMR 28.08(3)(a); In Re: Student & Boston Pub. Sch. & DESE, BSEA #20-08568, 26 MSER 140 (Ruling, Berman, 2020) (finding sufficient allegations specific to a Student to deny dismissal of claims against DESE involving a failure to provide that Student with a FAPE while incarcerated in DYS or to otherwise meet its obligations to that Student pursuant to 603 CMR 28.06(9)).
[21] Pursuant to Hearing Rule I(G), I consider all amendments in the Amended Hearing Request to be a clarification of the issues raised in the original Hearing Request and thus do not find it necessary for recalculation of any deadlines.