In Re: Student v. Belmont Public Schools BSEA# 26-05150

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS

BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS 

In Re: Student v. Belmont Public Schools

BSEA# 26-05150

RULING ON BELMONT PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS

On November 10, 2025, Parents, who are pro se, filed a Hearing Request in the instant matter against Belmont Public Schools (Belmont or the District), alleging that Belmont denied Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) by failing to provide a safe educational environment free from disability-based harassment and bullying, in violation of Section 504, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), M.G.L. c. 76, § 5, and M.G.L. c. 71, § 37O; that Belmont failed to properly implement Student’s Section 504 Plan, including by failing to reconvene the Section 504 team when his needs changed and the harassment escalated; violated procedural requirements under Section 504, the Massachusetts Student Records Regulations, and the anti-bullying law by failing to provide complete records and written investigation findings; violated procedural requirements related to manifestation determination reviews (MDRs); and demonstrated deliberate indifference to known harassment of a student with disabilities.

Parents asked for the following relief: advocate fees and costs, administrative and filing costs; payment of the costs of obtaining expert reports or independent evaluations, if necessary; an order requiring the District to take immediate action to stop the ongoing harassment; an order requiring comprehensive systemic reforms, including at least twelve (12) hours of staff training, policy revisions with strict implementation timelines, and appointment of an independent monitor for two (2) years; an order requiring that perpetrators face consequences and that safeguards be implemented to ensure no other student experiences similar harm; reimbursement for therapy costs, relocation expenses, and other related costs (amounts to be determined); an order requiring complete production of records, expungement of inappropriate or harmful entries, and issuance of written findings; declaratory relief; and an order retaining jurisdiction for two (2) years.

On November 24, 2025, the District filed Belmont Public Schools’ Hearing Request Response and Partial Motion to Dismiss (Motion to Dismiss or the Motion). In it, Belmont agrees that the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) has jurisdiction over whether the District properly implemented Student’s 504 Plan and complied with Section 504. However, according to Belmont, Parents’ other claims, especially those based on bullying, harassment, ADA, anti-discrimination laws, and student records, must be dismissed as outside the BSEA’s authority. Specifically, according to Belmont, Parents’ “safe environment” and harassment claims fail because they do not connect the bullying or the District’s response thereto to Student’s disability or his 504 services. Belmont also maintains that the BSEA cannot adjudicate ADA claims and that claims about procedural violations (including procedural violations pertaining to MDRs) and parental rights must also be dismissed because Parents do not show how any alleged violation denied Student a FAPE. Belmont further argues that “ongoing harassment” claims are moot because Student is no longer enrolled in the District and that, again, Parents fail to connect the alleged harassment to Student’s disability. Moreover, most of the relief Parents seek, such as systemic reforms, stopping harassment, monetary reimbursement, advocate fees, and retention of jurisdiction over the matter, is not available at the BSEA and must be dismissed.

On January 20, 2026, Parents filed Parents’ Opposition to Belmont’s Partial Motion to Dismiss (Opposition), arguing that Belmont’s Motion should be denied because, taking Parents’ allegations as true, Student was denied a FAPE through multiple substantive and procedural violations of Section 504. They contend that the BSEA has jurisdiction over their claims, including harassment, because under Section 504 and guidance from the Office of Civil Rights (OCR), schools violate the law when harassment creates a hostile environment that denies a student with a disability access to FAPE, regardless of whether the harassment was motivated by the student’s disability.  

Because neither party requested a hearing on the Motion, and 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 (Hearing Rule) VI(D). 

FINDINGS OF FACT[1]:

1. Student is а high school student who has been eligible for protections under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 during all relevant times. His 504 Plan is dated April 2, 2024, and is based on documented disabilities of Anxiety and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD). Student’s disabilities make him particularly vulnerable to bullying and harassment.
2. Although Student currently resides in Cambridge, Massachusetts, prior to August 2025, Student resided in Belmont, Massachusetts, with his parents.
3. According to Parents, from March 2025 through October 2025, Student was subjected to severe, persistent, and escalating peer harassment and bullying at Belmont High School that created а hostile educational environment and denied him access to FAPE.
4. Despite repeated parental requests and worsening harassment, Belmont High School allegedly failed to take adequate protective or intervention measures.
5. The harassment allegedly caused severe social isolation, worsened Student’s anxiety and OCD requiring increased therapy; prevented safe participation in school activities; led to lost educational opportunities; forced the family to relocate; and continued online even after relocation, which, they believe, reflects the persistence and severity of the hostile environment.
6. During the relevant timeframe, the District also allegedly failed to implement Student’s Section 504 Plan and allegedly failed to reconvene his Section 504 team to review whether the plan required modification or whether additional supports and services were needed to address new concerns.
7. Belmont is also alleged to have failed to provide Parents with investigative findings from their bullying investigation from April-May 2025, and to have allegedly provided incomplete documentation in response to parents’ requests for students’ records following an extensive delay in responding to Parents’ records requests. According to Parents, the delay in providing Parents with Student’s records “[p]revented Parents from understanding what services [Student] was entitled to receive[;] [d]elayed their ability to monitor implementation[;] [d]enied them meaningful participation in [Student’s] Section 504 program during а critical period[;] [and] [p]revented timely identification of implementation failures.”[2]
8. Also during this time, Belmont allegedly threatened suspension and imposed restrictions on Student without conducting any manifestation determination review to assess whether Student’s reactive responses to severe harassment were manifestations of his anxiety and OCD. Moreover, on June 17th, 2025, according to Parents, Student was removed on an emergency basis from school for one day without written notice, an investigation, or a hearing.[3]

LEGAL STANDARDS AND APPLICATION OF LEGAL STANDARDS:

1. Legal Standards:

Pursuant to Hearing Rule XVI (B) and 801 CMR 1.01(7)(g)(3)[4], a hearing officer may allow a motion to dismiss if the party requesting the hearing fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. These rules are analogous to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As such, hearing officers have generally used the same standards as the courts in deciding motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. To survive a motion to dismiss, there must exist “factual ‘allegations plausibly suggesting (not merely consistent with)’ an entitlement to relief.”[5] 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.”[6] These “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”[7]

1. Jurisdiction of the BSEA:

20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6) grants the BSEA jurisdiction over timely complaints filed by a parent/guardian or a school district “with respect to any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child.”[8] Similarly, M.G.L. c. 71B §2A, establishing the BSEA, authorizes the BSEA to resolve 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.”

The Section 504 regulations establishing procedural safeguards require districts to afford parents an impartial hearing in connection with actions relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of students with disabilities.[9] Section 504 also requires a district to provide a “free appropriate public education” to each qualified individual with a disability within its jurisdiction, regardless of the nature or severity of the individual’s disability.[10] Hence, in the context of a student found eligible for a 504 Plan, the BSEA’s jurisdiction is limited to disputes that are related to “identification, evaluation or educational placement” or the “denial of the free appropriate public education guaranteed by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973….”[11] In addition, the BSEA “can only grant relief that is authorized by these statutes and regulations, which generally encompasses orders for changed or additional services, specific placements, additional evaluations, reimbursement for services obtained privately by parents or compensatory services.”[12]

2. Application of Legal Standards:

In applying these standards , I bear in mind that complaints filed by pro se parties are to be construed liberally.[13] As explained by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, “[t]he policy behind affording pro se plaintiffs liberal interpretation is that if they present sufficient facts [to state a claim], the court may intuit the correct cause of action, even if it was imperfectly pled.”[14] This principle aligns with “[o]ur judicial system [, which] zealously guards the attempts of pro se litigants on their own behalf” while not ignoring the need for compliance with procedural and substantive law.[15]

1. Claims Surviving Dismissal

Parents’ claims stemming from federal and state special education statutes and Section 504 fall squarely within the jurisdiction and authority of the BSEA. If Parents prove their claims, the BSEA is authorized by statute and case law to order compensatory and/or prospective educational services. For the foregoing reasons, all claims relating to the District’s failure to implement Student’s 504 Plan or to reconvene the 504 Team when Student’s circumstances changed are within the BSEA’s jurisdiction.

Parents’ claims that the District failed to respond to allegations of bullying/harassment survive dismissal. Specifically, here, after reviewing the Hearing Request liberally, and in the light most favorable to Parents, as I must do, Parents assert a specific connection between Student’s disability, the bullying/harassment, Student’s receipt of Section 504 FAPE services, as well as the need for additional or different services due to the bullying/harassment. In other words, Parents allege that the District’s response to claims of bullying/harassment resulted in a denial of a FAPE.[16]   These claims are, therefore, also squarely within the BSEA’s jurisdiction.

The right to examine “relevant records” is included among the procedural safeguards granted to parents under Section 504.[17] Here, Parents draw a clear connection between the District’s failure to provide all requested student records and the delay in providing the limited records that were produced and Student’s access to a FAPE.[18] Although generally student records disputes are not within the jurisdiction of the BSEA,[19] here, Parents’ allegations that the delay in providing Parents with Student’s records “[p]revented Parents from understanding what services [Student] was entitled to receive[;] [d]elayed their ability to monitor implementation[;] [d]enied them meaningful participation in [Student’s] Section 504 program during а critical period[;] [and] [p]revented timely identification of implementation failures places said claims within the BSEA’s jurisdiction. Therefore, Parents’ claims relating to student record violations and their impact on Student’s access to a FAPE and Parents’ opportunity to meaningfully participate in the Section 504 process survive dismissal.

As such, Parents’ claims relating to the District’s failure to implement Student’s 504 Plan and/or to reconvene the 504 Team and amend the 504 Plan; the District’s failure to respond to allegations of bullying/harassment, thereby resulting in a loss of a FAPE; and the District’s failure to provide complete Student records to Parents in a timely manner thereby violating Student’s access to a FAPE and denying Parents the opportunity to meaningfully participate in the Section 504 process survive dismissal.

2. Claims Which Must Be Dismissed

Cases involving challenges to MDRs triggered by ten total or cumulative days of suspension or expulsion provisions are within the jurisdiction of the BSEA and must be addressed on an expedited basis.  In the instant matter, Parents allege that Student was threatened with suspension, and then was, in fact, suspended for one day during the school year at issue.[20] Because Parents do not allege that Student was subjected to 10 total or cumulative days of suspension, Parents’ claims relating to the District’s failure to conduct a manifestation review, taken as true, do not survive dismissal[21], as they are not claims for which relief may be granted at the BSEA.[22]

Parents’ claims relating to the ADA must also be dismissed because the BSEA’s jurisdiction does not explicitly extend to the ADA, which, unlike the IDEA and §504, contains no FAPE requirement.[23]

Parents’ general claims relative to Student’s “safety” must also be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as the BSEA has no jurisdiction over general education matters, and the requirement to ensure the safety of all students is not specific to students with disabilities.[24] Moreover, Parents’ claims arising after Parents’ relocation to Cambridge are improperly asserted against Belmont, as Student no longer resides within Belmont’s jurisdiction.[25] As such, Parents’ claims relating to “ongoing harassment” must be dismissed as well.

With regard to Parents’ requested relief, I note that the overwhelming majority of Parents’ requested relief (i.e., systemic reforms, orders to stop harassment, advocate fees, prospective retention of jurisdiction, and declaratory relief) is not relief that is available at the BSEA.[26]  Further, with respect to requests for monetary relief, other than reimbursement for educational or evaluative services obtained privately by parents or compensatory services, all other financial requests for relief are unavailable at the BSEA[27].

ORDER:

Belmont’s Motion is ALLOWED, in part, and DENIED, in part. Specifically, Parents’ claims relating to the District’s failure to implement Student’s 504 Plan or to reconvene the 504 Team; the District’s failure to respond to allegations of bullying/harassment, thereby resulting in a loss of a FAPE; and the District’s failure to provide complete Student records to Parents in a timely manner thereby violating Student’s access to a FAPE and Parents’ opportunity for meaningful participation in the Section 504 process survive dismissal. The only requests for relief that survive dismissal are compensatory educational services and reimbursement for educational or evaluative services obtained privately by Parents. All other claims and relief are dismissed with prejudice[28].

So Ordered,

/s/ Alina Kantor Nir

Alina Kantor Nir

Date:   January 22, 2026

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 (1^st 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] In this Ruling, I take as true “the allegations of the complaint, as well as such inferences as may be drawn therefrom in [the Parents’] favor” as I am required to do. Blank v. Chelmsford Ob/Gyn, P.C., 420 Mass. 404, 407 (1995).  These facts are subject to revision in future rulings and Decision.

[2] The impact of the delay in providing Parents with Student’s records was described in Parents’ Opposition, but not in their Hearing Request.

[3] In their Hearing Request, Parents indicate that the District threatened Student with suspension. The information regarding Student’s removal on an emergency basis in June 2025 was provided in Parents’ Opposition.

[4] Hearing Officers are bound by the Hearing Rules and the Standard Rules of Adjudicatory Practice and Procedure, 801 Code Mass. Regs 1.01.

[5] Iannocchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623, 636 (2008) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007)).

[6] Blank v. Chelmsford Ob/Gyn, P.C., 420 Mass. 404, 407 (1995).  

[7] Golchin v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 460 Mass. 222, 223 (2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

[8] See 34 C.F.R. §300.507(a)(1).

[9] See 34 CFR 104.36.

[10] See 34 CFR 104.33(a).

[11] See 29 U.S.C. 794 (Section 504 of Rehabilitation Act); 34 CFR 104.

[12] In Re: Georgetown Pub. Sch., BSEA #1405352 (Berman, 2014).

[13] See Ahmed v. Rosenblatt, 118 F.3d 886, 890 (1st Cir. 1997).

[14] Id.

[15] Id.

[16] See In Re: Student v. Weymouth Public Schools (Ruling on Weymouth Public Schools’ Motion to Dismiss), BSEA # 14-09137 (Figueroa, 2014) (claim of bullying survived dismissal because Parent expressed concerns that possible bullying may result in a denial of FAPE to Student and, as such, the BSEA had jurisdiction over this issue); see also Dear Colleague Letter, 61 IDELR 263 (OSERS/OSEP 2013) (schools have an obligation to ensure that a student with a disability who is the target of bullying behavior continues to receive FAPE). In contrast, see In re: Monomoy Regional School District (Ruling on Motion to Dismiss), BSEA # 2009834 (Berman, 2020) (dismissing bullying claims where “the hearing request alleges no nexus between Student’s disability and the bullying or the District’s response to it that would potentially bring the dispute within the domain of BSEA jurisdiction”); see also In re: Old Rochester Regional School District, BSEA # 1806205 (Byrne, 2018) (“As a forum with limited subject matter jurisdiction, any factual/legal assertions that could be construed as viable claims solely under Title IX, MGL c. 151B, MGL c. 119 and MGL c.71 § 370 are not properly lodged here”).

[17] See 34 CFR 104.36.

[18] See In re: Student v. Marshfield Public Schools (Ruling on Marshfield Public Schools’ Motion to Dismiss/Motion for Summary Judgment),BSEA # 2209242 (Kantor Nir, 2022) (“the BSEA does not have any authority to enforce allegations of educational record violations under either state or federal laws, unless such claims are also FAPE-based”).

[19] Massachusetts law provides private appeal procedures for parents who believe the state educational record laws have been violated; such appeal is not to the BSEA. See 603 CMR 23.09.

[20] Parents’ allegations that the District “took multiple disciplinary actions against” Student (i.e., Student was denied “GSA commenting privileges” and subjected to a “proposed restrictive safety plan”) are not within the jurisdiction of the BSEA. The mere fact that a claim involves a student with a disability does not automatically mean that it is within the BSEA’s jurisdiction. The claim must fit within the statutory and regulatory subject matter the BSEA is empowered to decide, which these claims do not.

[21] Although the term “manifestation determination review” does not appear in the Section 504 regulations, according to OCR, “a significant change in placement” triggering an MDR occurs when a student with a disability is suspended or expelled for more than 10 consecutive school days in a single school year or has been subject to a series of removals constituting a pattern (i.e., totaling more than 10 cumulative days in a school year). See Questions and Answers: Addressing the Needs of Children with Disabilities and IDEA’s Discipline Provisions, 81 IDELR 138 (OSERS 2022) (addressing how to calculate the 10 days of disciplinary removals for MDR purposes).  

[22] Parents allege that they did not receive written notice of the removal and were not provided with an opportunity for a hearing.  As noted in Footnote 20, herein, these allegations do not implicate Student’s right to a FAPE, and, as such, are not within the BSEA’s jurisdiction.

[23] See In Re: Student & Chicopee Public Schools & Mass. Dept. of Elementary & Secondary Education (Ruling On Motions To Dismiss Of Mass. Dept. Of Elementary And Secondary Education And Chicopee Public Schools), BSEA # 16-08986 (Berman, 2016).

[24] See In Re: Hampden-Wilbraham School District, BSEA # 1403110 (Figueroa, 2013); see also In Re: Acton Boxborough Regional School District, BSEA # 2103253 (Figueroa, 2021) (“the BSEA has long held that it has no jurisdiction over regular education matters… [… or] to order remedies over violations of internal school policies, procedures or student handbooks”); In Re: Rochester Regional School District, BSEA #1806205 (Byrne, 2018) (“The BSEA is not the proper forum to complain that a school failed to follow the policies and procedures set out in a student handbook”) (citations omitted).

[25] See 34 CFR 104.33 (a) (Section 504 requires a district to provide a “free appropriate public education” to each qualified individual with a disability within its jurisdiction, regardless of the nature or severity of the individual’s disability).

[26] See In re: Acton-Boxborough Regional School District, BSEA # 2103253 (Figueroa, 2021) (the BSEA “may award only the limited remedies available under the IDEA, MGL. C. 71 B and Section 504 after a finding of past or current failures by school districts to offer FAPE; funding or reimbursement to parents for evaluations, private placements and or related services; modification of special education programs; school placements; and compensatory education and related equitable relief”); In re: Georgetown Pub. Sch., BSEA # 1405352 (Berman, 2014) (“The BSEA can only grant relief that is authorized by these statutes and regulations [M.G.L. c. 71B and its regulations; IDEA, 20 USC§ 1400 et seg. and its regulations; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 USC§ 794 and its regulations]”); In Re: Student v. Weymouth Public Schools (Ruling on Weymouth Public Schools’ Motion to Dismiss), BSEA # 14-09137 (Figueroa, 2014) (the BSEA cannot “monitor” a school district” to ensure it provides Student with the safe [] environment” or “micromanage the day—to—day operations of the school district” as “the BSEA is not a policing agency and it lacks the type of enforcement authority.”; In Re: Student & Boston Public Schools (Ruling on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment), BSEA # 19-00241 (Berman, 2019) (finding “[t]he equitable, declaratory and administrative relief properly sought by the Parents at the BSEA is inextricably intertwined with their additional requests for relief not available under the IDEA but authorized by other statutes”).

[27]   See Diaz-Fonseca v. Puerto Rico, 451 F.3d 13, 36 (1st Cir. 2006) (holding that punitive and tort-like compensatory damages are not available in BSEA proceedings as “… the windfall of such awards to IDEA plaintiffs would likely come at the expense of other educational benefits for other schoolchildren by diverting from them scarce educational resources”); Frazier v. Fairhaven Sch. Comm., 276 F.3d 52, 59 (1st Cir. 2002) (noting without explanation that “… the array of remedies available under the IDEA does not include money damages”);  In Re: Albert and Boston Public Schools (Ruling on Motion to Dismiss), BSEA # 06-6508 (Crane, 2007) (“I am not aware of a single judicial or administrative decision that has concluded, either explicitly or implicitly, that Section 504 monetary damages may be allowed in an administrative due process proceeding”).

[28]  See Hearing Rule XVI(A) (“Dismissal 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”).