COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Student v. Arlington Public Schools
BSEA# 26-06305
RULING ON PARENT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF NON-ACCELERATED STATUS
This Motion for Reconsideration of Non-Accelerated Status was filed by Parent via email on January 7, 2026. In it, Parent, who is pro se, seeks reconsideration of my finding in Ruling On Parent’s Request For Accelerated Status For Amended Hearing Request (Ruling), issued on December 18, 2025, that Parent’s Amended Hearing Request did not meet the standard for accelerated status.
Parent requested that the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) “schedule a Motion Conference as soon as possible (via Zoom or telephone) to address: 1. The Request for Accelerated Status based on the surviving FAPE and Exclusion claims [and] 2. Interim relief to ensure the Student can safely access his education pending the full hearing.”
On January 7, 2026, Arlington Public Schools (Arlington or the District) responded that the District continues to assert that the circumstances of this matter do not meet the accelerated standard. According to Arlington, Student was only suspended for two school days this entire school year and has consistently been attending school since the incident. The District also observed that it
“has been required to respond to multiple submissions from the Parent that are largely duplicative, seek the same ruling from the BSEA, and lack any student-specific factual allegations that would support expedited or accelerated status. The uniform structure, repetitive language, and absence of individualized detail strongly suggest that these submissions are generated from an automated source rather than grounded in the particular facts of this Student. As such, they impose an unnecessary and unwarranted burden on the District (and the Bureau), which the District respectfully notes for the record.”
Because neither testimony nor oral argument would advance the Hearing Officer’s understanding of the issues involved, this Ruling is issued without a hearing, pursuant to Bureau of Special Education Appeals Hearing Rule VII(D).
LEGAL STANDARD:
A motion for reconsideration may be allowed where a party alleges any manifest errors of law or fact, new information, or an intervening change in law that warrants reconsideration.[1]
Pursuant to BSEA Hearing Rule II(D), hearings may be assigned accelerated status in the following situations:
a. When the health or safety of the student or others would be endangered by the delay; or
b.When the special education services the student is currently receiving are sufficiently inadequate such that harm to the student is likely; or
c.When the student is currently without an available educational program or the student’s program will be terminated or interrupted immediately.
APPLICATION OF LEGAL STANDARD:
In this Ruling, I rely on and incorporate by reference the December 18, 2025, Ruling and do not restate it here, unless necessary.
According to Parent, her claims regarding “disciplinary response or exclusion involving the Student’s right to a FAPE” implicate immediate health and safety concerns that warrant accelerated status under BSEA Hearing Rule II(D),as “Student is currently effectively excluded from his educational placement because the District has failed to implement the necessary IEP-based clinical supports and crisis interventions required to ensure a safe environment.” Parent argues that “[t]his failure constitutes a ‘Constructive Removal’” and that the absence of “these supports poses an ongoing risk to the Student’s emotional safety and stability, necessitating an expedited hearing to restore meaningful access.”
The BSEA’s accelerated-hearing standard is a narrow one, reserved for circumstances in which delay itself would “endanger” the health or safety of the student or others, not merely where a student’s program is alleged to be inadequate or imperfect. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, endangerment is the act or instance of putting someone or something in danger or “exposure to peril or harm.”[2] Danger is defined as “peril; exposure to harm”; “safety” as “freedom from exposure to danger”; and “harm” as “injury, loss, or detriment.” [3]
Here, Parent asserts that Student is “effectively excluded” from his placement due to the District’s alleged failure to implement certain IEP-based clinical supports, characterizes this as a “Constructive Removal,” and asserts that the absence of certain supports poses an “ongoing risk to emotional safety and stability.” Even assuming, arguendo, that Parent’s characterizations are accurate, exclusion or denial of services is not synonymous with endangerment, and Parent has asserted no new facts showing that the Student faces imminent physical or emotional harm if the hearing proceeds on a standard timeline. Although Parent’s allegations of emotional discomfort, instability, or reduced access to educational benefit are serious, they do not per se rise to the level of “health or safety endangerment” contemplated by the accelerated-hearing Rule. If such generalized assertions were sufficient, nearly any dispute over IEP implementation could be reframed as an emergency. Further, because Parent failed to “allege[] any manifest errors of law or fact, new information or an intervening change in law” but instead merely attempts to “rehash and/or relitigate” issues already addressed in the Ruling, reconsideration is not warranted.[4]
Regarding Parent’s request for interim relief to ensure the Student can safely access his education pending the full hearing, I encourage the parties to meet and collaborate in good faith to identify and implement measures that will ensure that Student feels safe and comfortable at school.
ORDER:
Parent’s Motion is DENIED.
By the Hearing Officer:
/s/ Alina Kantor Nir
Alina Kantor Nir
Dated: January 8, 2026
[1] See In Re: Student & Braintree Public Schools (Ruling on Parent’s Requests), BSEA# 25-11326 (Mitchell, 2025) (citing to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60 and to Villanueva-Mendez v. Nieves Vazquez, 360 F.Supp.2d 320, 323 (D. Mass. 2005) (internal citations omitted) (“… a motion for reconsideration cannot be used as a vehicle to relitigate and/or rehash matters already litigated and decided by the Court. These motions are entertained by Courts if they seek to correct manifest errors of law or fact, present newly discovered evidence, or when there is an intervening change in law”)).
[2] Black’s Law Dictionary (7th ed. 1999).
[3] Id.
[4] Villanueva-Mendez, 360 F.Supp.2d at 323.