COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Student v. Arlington Public Schools
BSEA# 26-0635
RULING ON ARLINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ SUFFICIENCY CHALLENGE
On December 9, 2025, Parent filed a Hearing Request 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.[1]
On December 16, 2025, Arlington filed Arlington Public Schools’ Motion to Dismiss/Sufficiency Challenge. Only Arlington’s Sufficiency Challenge is addressed in this Ruling. Specifically, the District argued that Parent’s hearing request is insufficient because it contains only conclusory assertions, lacks factual detail required by BSEA Hearing Rules, and includes issues raised on a conference call that are outside the BSEA’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, the District sought dismissal or, at a minimum, an amended hearing request that meets the required pleading standards.
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).
For the reasons set forth below, Arlington’s Sufficiency Challenge is ALLOWED.
LEGAL STANDARD AND APPLICATION OF LEGAL STANDARD:
- Sufficiency Challenge
- Legal Standard:
According to BSEA Hearing Rule I(B), the hearing request must contain the following information:
- The name of the child;
- The address of the residence of the child;
- The name of the school the child is attending;
- In the case of a homeless child or youth within the meaning of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 11434a(2)), available contact information for the child, and the name of the school the child is attending;
- A description of the nature of the problem of the child relating to the proposed or refused initiation or change, including facts relating to the problem; and
- A proposed resolution of the problem to the extent known and available to the party at the time.
BSEA Hearing Rule I(E) states that if the non-moving party believes that the hearing request does not contain the elements set out in Rule IB, that party may file a written challenge to the sufficiency of the hearing request with the Hearing Officer and the other party (ies) within fifteen (15) calendar days of receipt of the hearing request.The Hearing Officer shall rule as to the sufficiency of the hearing request within five (5) calendar days. This Rule further provides that if the hearing request is found to be sufficient, the original timelines remain unchanged. If the Hearing Officer finds the hearing request to be insufficient, the moving party may file an amended hearing request with the Hearing Officer and the other party, provided the moving party does so within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the insufficiency ruling. Failure to file the amended hearing request within 14 calendar days (or such other time as ordered by the Hearing Officer) may result in dismissal of the case without prejudice.
- Application of Legal Standard:
Arlington is correct that Parent’s Hearing Request includes no “facts relating to the problem” as required by BSEA Hearing Rule I(B)(5). Her complaint consists only of a list of issues and requests for relief, which are insufficient to provide Arlington with notice of the “problem” in this matter. As such, Arlington’s Sufficiency Challenge is ALLOWED.
ORDER:
Arlington’s Sufficiency Challenge is ALLOWED.
Parent may file an amended hearing request with the Hearing Officer and Arlington within fourteen calendar days from the date of this Ruling.
Failure to file the amended hearing request within fourteen calendar days may result in dismissal of the case without prejudice.
By the Hearing Officer:
/s/ Alina Kantor Nir
Alina Kantor Nir
Dated: December 16, 2025
[1] On December 10, 2025, the matter was found to meet the expedited standard. On December 11, 2025, Arlington filed a letter with the BSEA, objecting, in part, to the expedited status. On December 16, 2025, over Parent’s objection, Arlington’s Motion to Remove from Expedited Track was allowed.