COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Student v. Arlington Public Schools BSEA # 2606305
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.
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. The matter was scheduled for hearing on an expedited schedule.
On December 16, 2025, Arlington filed Arlington Public Schools' Motion to Dismiss First Claim of Initial Hearing Request, asserting that Student was suspended for only two school days during the current school year, which did not constitute a change of placement under state or federal law and therefore did 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. Parent opposed Arlington's Motion to Dismiss First Claim of Initial Hearing Request.
Also on December 18, 2025, Arlington filed a Motion To Dismiss Amended Hearing Request In Its Entirety/Sufficiency Challenge, asserting 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. Parent opposed the motion.
On January 6, 2026, I allowed Arlington Public Schools' Motion to Dismiss First Claim of Initial Hearing Request and Motion to Dismiss Amended Hearing Request with respect to general school safety or policy considerations and as to Parent's claim relating to whether the District "failed to conduct a manifestation determination review (MDR) prior to Student's removal from school", but denied it insofar as the Amended Hearing Request implicated disciplinary response or exclusion involving Student's right to a FAPE. The matter was removed from the expedited schedule and placed on the regular schedule. At the parties' request, and for good cause, the matter was subsequently postponed until March 4, 2026.
On January 30, 2026, in response to Arlington's request, I issued an Order clarifying the remaining issues for hearing as follows:
Whether Student's IEP was implemented during the time before his disciplinary incident in [November] [2]2025?
Whether the disciplinary response to Student's disciplinary incident in [November] 2025 denied Student a free appropriate public education FAPE?
Whether the District failed to convene a Team meeting in response to Student's disciplinary removal and changing educational needs, and, if so, whether Student was denied a FAPE as a result?
On January 30, 2026, Arlington filed Arlington's Second Motion to Dismiss, seeking to dismiss the second and third issues identified in the January 30, 2026 Order on the grounds that the Parent had failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and/or that the claims were moot.
On February 10, 2026, Arlington filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, asserting that there are no genuine disputes of material fact as to the issues for hearing, since the undisputed facts establish that the Student's IEP was implemented prior to November 2025, that the District's disciplinary response did not deny the Student a FAPE, and that the District did not commit a procedural or substantive violation resulting in a denial of FAPE. Parent opposed Arlington's Second Motion to Dismiss and Arlington's Motion for Summary Judgment.
On February 18, 2026, in a Ruling On Arlington Public Schools' Second Motion To Dismiss And Arlington Public Schools' Motion For Summary Judgment, I denied Arlington's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Parent's first issue identified in the January 30, 2026 Order, but allowed it as to Parent's second issue identified in the January 30, 2026 Orders. I also allowed Arlington's Second Motion to Dismiss as to the third issue identified in the January 30, 2026 Order, concluding that the sole remaining issue for hearing is whether Student's IEP was implemented prior to the disciplinary incident in November 2025.
A hearing was held via a virtual platform on March 4, 2026.. Parent was pro se. Arlington Public Schools (Arlington or the District) was represented by counsel. Those present for all or part of the proceedings, all of whom agreed to participate virtually, were:
Mother
Student
Alison Elmer, Assistant Superintendent of Student Services.
Joyce Dvorak, Special Education Team Chairperson, Arlington
Katie Meinelt, Attorney for Arlington
Matthew Janger, Arlington High School Principal
Jatira Cotton-Dortch, Court Reporter
The official record of the hearing consists of documents submitted by Parent and marked as Exhibits P-1 through and including P-4; documents submitted by Arlington and marked as Exhibits S-1 through and including S-4; and a one-volume transcript produced by a court reporter. The parties made their closing arguments orally, and the record closed on March 4, 2026.
ISSUE IN DISPUTE:
The sole issue in dispute is whether Student's IEP was implemented prior to the disciplinary incident in November 2025.
FACTUAL FINDINGS:
Student is an 11th-grade student attending Arlington High School in Arlington, Massachusetts. Matthew Janger is the principal of Arlington High School. He has served in this role for 13 years and is responsible for ensuring that students' IEPs are implemented. (Janger)
Joyce Dvorak is a Special education Team Chairperson at Arlington High School. She testified that she had chaired Student's Team meeting on April 8, 2025. Subsequently, Parent fully accepted the IEP for the period April 8, 2025, to April 7, 2026 (April 2025 IEP). According to the April 2025 IEP, Student is eligible for special education and related services pursuant to the disability category of Emotional Impairment. Student's disability contributes to the avoidance of classes or teachers with whom he has a strained relationship. His distress tolerance, particularly for boredom, frustration, or discomfort, is low, and, when overwhelmed, he may leave or avoid class altogether. The Team identified that due to his emotional disability, Student "may act impulsively or use language that could be perceived as targeting/harmful to others."( Janger, Dvorak, P-1, S-1)
The April 2025 IEP includes access to a social worker, designated check-ins with a social worker, and accommodations for movement breaks and relationship building with other adults to support him through social/relationship challenges. Specifically, Student's IEP includes, in part, the following accommodations: frequent positive reinforcement; intentional relationship-building with adults; regular check-ins, and structured in-class movement breaks with clear expectations for return. When signs of agitation or frustration emerge (e.g., swearing, work refusal), staff may offer space or initiate the use of a pass for a brief walk as a preventive measure. Student receives instruction in social-emotional coping and relationship-building skills. His IEP includes goals and services in the areas of Transition/Vocational-Executive Functioning (targeting initiating and completing tasks) and Behavioral/Social/Emotional (targeting setting and taking action on goals). (Janger, Dvorak, P-1, S-1)
According to the April 2025 IEP, Student
"made great progress in his social-emotional regulation over the course of the 2024-2025 academic year. [Student] does not seek support from [the] social worker, but will complete brief 5-10 minute check-ins when regulated and prompted by an adult. [Student] is resistant to engaging in social-emotional skill focused work (such as learning coping strategies, understanding emotions, interpersonal effectiveness, etc.), however, [he] can use these short check-ins to share his thoughts and goals." (P-1, S-1)
Student's April 2025 IEP states, under Additional Information, that Student "has a good relationship with [Ms.] [], who is aware of his disability and has access to his IEP. She is a good support and advocate for [Student] during the school day and if any disciplinary issues arise." (Janger, P-1, S-1)
On the morning of November 13, 2025, Student's ex-girlfriend (hereinafter, Student A) reported, and Student later acknowledged, that Student loudly yelled her name across the lobby in a way Student A experienced as harassing. Ms. [] spoke with Student, warning him to stay away from Student A.
Later that afternoon, despite having classes scheduled on the second floor, Student went to the fourth-floor hallway, where Student A was attending classes. According to Ms. [], Student "had no reason to be on the 4th floor outside of his classes at [that time]." A friend of Student A (hereinafter, Student X) threatened to throw a water bottle at Student. Student and Student X engaged in escalating and disruptive behavior, where they were "in each other's face." In the presence of other students in the hallway, both Student and Student X used inappropriate language, and Student repeatedly used a racial slur.
Ms. [] heard the yelling while in her office. She came out of her office, separated Student and Student X, redirecting both to step away and take space. Student X returned to her classroom. Student continued yelling, swearing, and using racial slurs after being told to stop. Ms. [] prompted Student, in a calm voice, to walk away. Student continued to yell and swear as they walked to the front door. (Student, Janger, P-3, P-4, S-2, S-3)
According to Ms. [] "[t]his has been a de-escalation strategy agreed upon in the past. [When Student] is escalated, we take a walk, Ms. Tivnan escorts him out the door, he goes home to check-in with his mother and Ms. Tivnan follows up with [Parent]."
As they walked, Student
"continued to say the [racial slur] and then put his hand to his mouth and laughed about it. Then he stood close to Ms. [] and pointed at her and said, 'You're my [racial slur].] Ms. [] stopped walking and quietly asked [Student], 'Did you just call me [racial slur]?' repeating the full version of the word the way he had. [Student] yelled at Ms. [] and called her a 'crazy white lady,' took out his phone and said he recorded her. Ms. [] tried to explain that she repeated what [Student had] said. Ms. [] walked [Student] to the door and went back to her office to call his mother."
According to Ms. [], she felt "threatened and provoked" but "decided not to use the radio to call for support from other administrators because that would escalate [Student] more. She has been the person to de-escalate [Student] through multiple incidents, several times when he is threatening other staff, and although she didn't feel safe in the moment, she decided to stay with him and not bring more people into the situation." (Janger[3], P-2, S-2)
According to Ms. [], she asks Student "on a regular basis" to "to stop using [inappropriate language] and [racial slurs] in the hallway. [Student] usually says he can't help it, and then promises to stop, but while walking away will yell it one more time[]. This time [Student] didn't stop and repeatedly said [the racial slur]." (Janger, S-2)
Student testified that he receives special education and related services to help him with his impulsivity. According to Student, during the incident, he was not directed to speak with a trusted adult, to tell his side of the incident, or to call Parent. Instead, he was "kicked out." Student felt "terrified" and "teared up" when he called Parent. (Student)
According to Student, his trusted adults are a counselor and a math teacher. (Student)
Dr. Janger testified that Arlington High School "follows Safety Care," which means that staff prompts students to "withdraw" and "step away." Staff also use a calm voice during escalations. Moreover, Arlington High School has an Open Campus Policy, which allows students to leave campus during unassigned times of the day. In addition, Parent had agreed in the past that when Student became escalated and could not deescalate, he would be allowed to go home, provided that Parent was notified immediately. According to Dr. Janger, Student had been allowed to leave campus at least once beforehand under such circumstances. [4] (Janger, S-2)
After Student left, Ms. [] called Parent. She explained that "there have been several incidents where she has been able to de-escalate [Student] and he has never been this aggressive toward her. Out of shock and to clarify, she repeated what he said to her [i.e., the racial slur]." Parent was angry and stated that it was inappropriate for Ms. [] to repeat the racial slur.[5] (Parent, Janger, S-2)
According to Dr. Janger, this was not Student's first major infraction. Although his behaviors during the 2025-2026 school year were largely attendance-related, in the prior school year, he engaged in vandalism and other disruptive conduct. Historically, Ms. [] has been the staff member who supported Student during behavioral incidents. (Janger)
Dr. Janger testified that during the incident, Student's IEP had been implemented. Student had access to Ms. [], a trusted adult who had been successful in deescalating Student in the past and who was specified in the IEP as a "go to" person; he was prompted to walk away and take space; he was redirected from the inappropriate behavior; he was provided a movement break; and he was allowed to leave campus when he could not deescalate. (Janger)
Ms. Dvorak reviewed Ms. []'s contemporaneous account of the incident and concluded that Student's IEP was implemented on November 13. Ms. [] encouraged Student to "step away" so as not to make the situation worse. Student was prompted to take a break; allowed to remove himself from the situation; and his trusted adult, who "happened to be there," was present to de-escalate him. (Dvorak, S-2)
On Thursday, November 13, 2025, Dr. Janger issued a Notice Of Emergency Removal From School And Additional Potential Discipline Pursuant To MGL Ch. 71, §37H¾ (the Emergency Notice). Student was removed from school on November 13 and 14, 2025, on an emergency basis. The Emergency Notice indicated that a further short-term suspensionwas a possible consequence. Because Parent was not available on Friday, November 14, 2025, Dr. Janger scheduled a disciplinary hearing for Monday, November 17, 2025. (Janger, P-2)
Parent testified that Dr. Janger called her on the evening of November 13, 2025, to inform her of the emergency removal. (Parent) According to Dr. Janger, the decision to remove Student on an emergency basis was only made at that time, which is why he did not contact Parent beforehand. (Janger)
While Student was removed on an emergency basis, he had the opportunity to complete assignments, tests, papers, and other schoolwork as needed to make academic progress. (P-2)
According to Dr. Janger, using racially charged hate speech is a major disciplinary infraction and typically would require a multi-staff response. Here, Ms. [] "felt threatened and provoked" but "decided not to use the radio to саll for support from other administrators because that would escalate [Student] more." (Janger, S-2)
Dr. Janger testified that Student has more leeway because staff is aware that he sometimes blurts out inappropriate speech. However, during the incident at issue, Student would not stop using racial slurs despite being redirected. (Janger)
On November 17, 2025, a disciplinary hearing was held with Parent and Student in attendance. According to Dr. Janger, during the hearing Student acknowledged that he was able to meet expectations and that, in this case, he had not just blurted inappropriate language and racial slurs, but he had continued to do so after being redirected. Following the hearing, Dr. Janger concluded that on November 13, 2025, Student exhibited a "pattern of behavior [that] created a significant disruption to the school environment, contributed to the conflict with Student X, and raised serious concerns about the use of racially charged language toward both students and staff." Student was found to have violated M.G.L. ch. 71, §37H¾ and the Student Handbook (Intimidation, Harassment, Hate-Speech/Civil Rights-Related Conduct, Profanity, Vulgar, and Obscene Behavior, Disruption to the School Environment, and Defiance of Authority/Insubordination). Dr. Janger issued a Short-Term Suspension Notice Pursuant To MGL Ch. 71, §37H¾, imposing a suspension of two (2) school days and noting that as Student had been removed on an emergency basis from November 13 to 14, 2025, his suspension had been served. (P-3, P-4, S-3)
Dr. Janger also imposed the following safety expectations for Student upon his return to school: Student would refrain from using derogatory, insulting or inflammatory language; Student would not make threats; Student would not communicate with the other two students or share posts about them; Student would not engage in rumors or insulting behaviors; Student would avoid the 4th floor areas near the other students' classes, accessing it only for his schedule; Student would report any comments the other students make to an administrator rather than respond or retaliate. Dr. Janger indicated that a violation of these safety expectations would be considered a major disciplinary infraction. (P-3, P-4, S-3)
On January 20, 2026, the Team convened with Parent in an attempt to resolve the matter. Although, according to Arlington, Student had accumulated two formal suspension days during the 2025-2026 school year and, apart from those days, had continued to receive IEP services and remain engaged in instruction, the District offered 10 hours of tutoring to support Student's academic progress and advancement toward graduation. These services are currently being delivered by a licensed special education teacher. (Dvorak, S-4)
Ms. Dvorak testified that following the last IEP meeting with Parent, which took place in early December, some changes were proposed to the April 2025 IEP. An Amendment has been sent to Parent but has yet to be accepted. (Dvorak)
DISCUSSION:
Legal Standards
Free Appropriate Public Education in the Least Restrictive Environment
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was enacted "to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education" (FAPE).[6] To provide a student with a FAPE, a school district must follow identification, evaluation, program design, and implementation practices that ensure that each student with a disability receives an Individualized Education Program (IEP) that is: custom tailored to the student's unique learning needs; "reasonably calculated to confer a meaningful educational benefit"; and ensures access to and participation in the general education setting and curriculum as appropriate for that student so as "to enable the student to progress effectively in the content areas of the general curriculum."[7] The IEP must be individually tailored for the student for whom it is created.[8]
Under state and federal special education law, a school district has an obligation to provide the services that comprise FAPE in the "least restrictive environment" (LRE).[9] This means that to the maximum extent appropriate, a student must be educated with other students who do not have disabilities, and that "removal . . . from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services, cannot be achieved satisfactorily."[10]
Implementation Failures
In order to prevail on an implementation claim under the IDEA,[11] the generally adopted standard requires "more than a de minimis failure." Specifically,
"a court reviewing failure-to-implement claims under the IDEA must ascertain whether the aspects of the IEP that were not followed were 'substantial or significant,' or, in other words, whether the deviations from the IEP's stated requirements were 'material.' A material failure occurs when there is more than a minor discrepancy between the services a school provides to a disabled child and the services required by the child's IEP. This standard does not require that the child suffer demonstrable educational harm in order to prevail; rather, courts applying the materiality standard have focused on the proportion of services mandated to those actually provided, and the goal and import (as articulated in the IEP) of the specific service that was withheld."[12]
Courts have found FAPE violations where (1) the "failure" to implement was "complete"; (2) the variance from the special education and related services specified in the IEP deprived the student of a FAPE; and (3) the provision of special education and related services failed to enable the student to make "progress" toward the achievement of the goals stated in the IEP.[13]
Burden of Persuasion
In a due process proceeding, the burden of proof is on the moving party.[14] If the evidence is closely balanced, the moving party will not prevail.[15] In the instant case, Parent bears this burden.
Application of Legal Standards:[16]
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 issue in dispute is set out , supra.
At the outset, I note that although Parent raises concerns about the implementation of Student's IEP on November 13, 2025, this matter does not involve a manifestation determination review. As discussed, supra, Arlington's Motion to Dismiss with respect to Parent's manifestation determination claim was allowed in my January 6, 2026, Ruling. (Student was only removed from school for 2 days, and, as such, no change in placement occurred, and no manifestation determination review was necessary.) The issue of whether the IEP was implemented on November 13, 2025, is therefore addressed independently, and not in the context of a manifestation determination review.
After reviewing the testimony and the documents admitted into evidence, as well as the thoughtful arguments of Parent and Arlington's Counsel, in the context of the Legal Standards delineated supra, I find that Arlington fully implemented Student's April 2025 IEP on November 13, 2025. Specifically, when Student became escalated, Ms. [], who is described in the IEP as "a good support and advocate for [Student] during the school day and if any disciplinary issues arise," responded to the incident in a calm manner, redirecting Student and prompting him to walk with her and remove himself from the situation. Despite this being a major disciplinary incident, she did not call for additional staff support in an attempt not to escalate the situation. According to Ms. []'s account and Dr. Janger's testimony, these strategies have worked to de-escalate Student in the past. While an IEP is an offer of a FAPE, it does not guarantee a specific outcome.[17] Therefore, although it is unfortunate that these strategies, as delineated in the IEP, did not de-escalate Student on November 13, their ineffectiveness does not suggest a failure to implement the IEP.
At hearing, Parent argued that Student was denied access to a trusted adult while escalated and that, under the circumstances, Ms. [] acted solely in an administrative capacity. I am not persuaded. The IEP specifically identifies Ms. [] as a supportive adult during disciplinary situations. The record further reflects that she has previously de-escalated Student in similar circumstances, including incidents involving inappropriate language and racial slurs. Her response on this occasion was therefore consistent with the IEP and appropriate under the circumstances.
In addition, despite Student's testimony that a specific school counselor is his "trusted adult," I cannot find that Arlington was obligated to have that counselor present to de-escalate Student where the IEP specifically references Ms. [] as a support person for Student.[18] As such, I cannot find that not providing Student with a different trusted adult than the one who responded to the incident was "evidence that the school actually failed to implement an essential element of the IEP that was necessary for the child to receive an educational benefit."[19]
Parent also argued that Student was not prompted to take a break but instead was asked to leave school. In assessing whether the District implemented Student's accepted IEP, I must
"consider implementation as a whole in light of the IEP's overall goals. That means that [I] consider the cumulative impact of [any] implementation failures when those failures, though minor in isolation, conspire to amount to something more. In an implementation case, the question is not whether the school has materially failed to implement an individual provision in isolation, but rather whether the school has materially failed to implement the IEP as a whole. Cumulative analysis is therefore built into the materiality standard itself."[20]
Although sending Student home to de-escalate is not included as an accommodation in the IEP, Dr. Janger testified that Parent had agreed to the arrangement for situations when Student was unable to regain control at school. Parent disputed that she had agreed to this arrangement. Even accepting Parent's testimony, I cannot conclude that Ms. []'s action constituted an implementation failure. A "cumulative analysis" of the District's response on November 13 supports the conclusion that the IEP was implemented "as a whole in light of the IEP's overall goals,"[21] namely addressing Student's social/emotional functioning, distress tolerance, and impulsivity.
I further note that even had the District deviated from the IEP on that day, the variance was minimal, and Parent offered no evidence that it deprived Student of a FAPE or that, as a result, Student failed to make progress toward the achievement of the goals stated in the IEP.[22] Accordingly, Parent has not met her burden on this claim.
ORDER:
Parent has failed to meet her burden to show that Student's IEP was not implemented prior to the disciplinary incident in November 2025.[23]
So Ordered,
By the Hearing Officer,/s/ Alina Kantor Nir
Alina Kantor Nir, Hearing Officer
March 5, 2026
Footnotes
[2] My Order dated January 30, 2025 stated, in error, the incident took place in December.
[3] Dr. Janger testified regarding Ms. []'s account of the incident, and the quoted portions set forth in this Decision are drawn verbatim from her account.
[4] On cross-examination, Parent questioned Dr. Janger regarding when this agreement had been reached and with whom. Dr. Janger testified that Ms. [] and other members of Student's Team had informed him of the arrangement. (Janger) Ms. []'s statement affirms that this is a strategy she had utilized with Student. (S-2)
[5] According to Dr. Janger, "[w]hile [Ms. []'s] intent was to clarify what was said, repeating this language is not appropriate under our professional standards. For this reason, [he planned to] … review[] [Ms. []'s] response in accordance with school procedures. That review [would] be handled separately from [S]tudent's disciplinary process…." (P-2)
[6] Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §1400 (d)(1)(A).
[7] See 20 U.S.C. §1401(9), (26), (29); 603 CMR 28.05(4)(b); C.D. by and through M.D. v. Natick Public School District, 924 F.3d 621, 629 (1st Cir. 2019); Sebastian M. v. King Philip Reg'l Sch. Dist., 685 F.3d 84, 84 (1st Cir. 2012); Lessard v. Wilton Lyndeborough Cooperative Sch. Dist., 518 F. 3d 18 (1st Cir. 2008); C.G. ex rel. A.S. v. Five Town Comty. Sch. Dist., 513 F. 3d 279 (1st Cir. 2008).
[8] Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 580 U.S. 386, 402 (2017).
[9] 20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(5)(A); 34 CFR 300.114(a)(2)(i); M.G.L. c. 71 B, §§2, 3; 603 CMR 28.06(2)(c).
[10] 20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(5)(A); C.D. v. Natick Pub. Sch. Dist., 924 F. 3d at 631 (internal citations omitted).
[11] Id. at 143.
[12] Id. at 143-44 (citing and quoting Van Duyn v. Baker Sch. Dist., 502 F.3d 811, 822 (9th Cir. 2007) and Garmany v. District of Columbia, 935 F. Supp. 2d 177, 181 (D. D.C. 2013)).
[13] See Ross v. Framingham Sch. Comm., 44 F. Supp. 2d 104, 119 (D. Mass. 1999), aff'd, 229 F.3d 1133 (1st Cir. 2000).
[14] Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 62 (2008).
[15] Id. (places the burden of proof in an administrative hearing on the party seeking relief).
[16] In making my determinations, I rely on the facts I have found as set forth in the Findings of Facts, above, and incorporate them by reference to avoid restating them except where necessary.
[17] See Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist., Westchester Cnty. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 192 (1982) ("Congress expressly recognize[d] that in many instances the process of providing special education and related services to handicapped children is not guaranteed to produce any particular outcome. Thus, the intent of the Act was more to open the door of public education to handicapped children on appropriate terms than to guarantee any particular level of education once inside") (internal quotations and citations omitted); G.D. v. Westmoreland Sch. Dist., 930 F.2d 942, 948 (1st Cir.1991) ("a FAPE has been defined as one guaranteeing a reasonable probability of educational benefits with sufficient supportive services at public expense"); Lenn v. Portland Sch. Comm., 998 F.2d 1083, 1086 (1st Cir. 1993) ("The IDEA does not promise perfect solutions to the vexing problems posed by the existence of learning disabilities in children and adolescents"); see also Nack ex rel. Nack v. Orange City Sch. Dist., 454 F.3d 604, 614 (6th Cir.2006) ("[T]he IDEA does not guarantee success-it only requires a school to provide sufficient specialized services so that the student benefits from his education") (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
[18] Moreover, although Student's IEP provides for check-ins and access to a school adjustment counselor, it also indicates that Student "does not seek support from [the] social worker."
[19] See Neosho R-V Sch. Dist. v. Clark, 315 F.3d 1022, 1027 n. 3 (8th Cir.2003); see also Van Duyn ex rel. Van Duyn v. Baker Sch. Dist. 5J, 502 F.3d 811, 822 (9th Cir. 2007) ("A material failure occurs when there is more than a minor discrepancy between the services a school provides to a disabled child and the services required by the child's IEP").
[20] L.J. by N.N.J. v. Sch. Bd. of Broward Cnty., 927 F.3d 1203, 1215 (11th Cir. 2019).
[21] Id.
[22] See Ross, 44 F. Supp. 2d at 119; see also Van Duyn, 502 F.3d at 822 ("if the child is not provided the reading instruction called for and there is a shortfall in the child's reading achievement, that would certainly tend to show that the failure to implement the IEP was material. On the other hand, if the child performed at or above the anticipated level, that would tend to show that the shortfall in instruction was not material").
[23] The November 2025 incident prompted a reconvene of the Team to assess Student's needs and the District has proposed an Amendment to Student's IEP. I encourage Parent, who is indisputably a devoted mother and strong advocate for Student, to review the proposed changes and collaborate with the District to ensure that Student has access to the appropriate supports and services.