In Re: Student v. Blackstone-Millville R.S.D. BSEA# 26-03843

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS

BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS

In Re: Student v.  Blackstone-Millville R.S.D.

BSEA# 26-03843

RULING ON PARENTS’ MOTION FOR STAY-PUT

This matter comes before the Hearing Officer on Parents’ September 30, 2025, Motion for Stay-Put (Motion) seeking a ruling that Student is “entitled to stay-put during the pendency of this matter; and [that] [h]is stay-put program is the language-based, Language and Learning Disabilities program, in the Framingham Public Schools, agreed upon following the April 2025 team meeting, or an equivalent substantially separate language-based program.”

On October 8, 2025, Blackstone-Millville Regional School District (Blackstone or the District) filed an Opposition to Parents’ Motion for Stay-Put (Opposition)[1], arguing that Student never actually attended the Framingham Program sought by the Motion for Stay-Put. Rather, Parents only accepted the Framingham IEP in August 2025. Moreover, the District did in fact propose a substantially-separate placement for Student comparable to the Framingham IEP. “Since there is no stay-put entitlement to schedule or location, and since continuity and the preservation of the status quo favor the current [Blackstone] program, the [Parents’] Motion for Stay-Put to the Framingham Program must be denied.”

On October 13, 2025, Parents filed a response to the District’s Opposition, requesting “the opportunity to present evidence demonstrating that Framingham proposed a language-based, substantially separate placement for [Student] in March 2025, and that [Parents] accepted that program on April 17, 2025. After the placement was accepted, [Student] did, in fact, start in the program. … [The IEP proposed by Framingham Public Schools] proves that Framingham believed specific aspects of its language-based program were benefiting [Student], demonstrating that this was not just any substantially separate classroom.”  Parents argued that “preserving the status quo does not mean keeping the new status quo [Blackstone] has improperly created by changing the Student’s placement without parental consent. …The District will have the opportunity to argue for the placement it believes to be appropriate at Hearing. However, until then, it cannot change [Student’s] placement without parental consent.”

On October 14, 2025, the District filed Blackstone-Millville Regional School District’s Corrected Response And Opposition To Motion For Stay-Put, together with 4 exhibits[2], stating,

“The District’s initial Response misinterpreted the service delivery grid between different iterations of Framingham’s revised IEPs; in fact, [Student] did attend a substantially-separate placement in Framingham for the last two months of the 2024-2025 school year. However, [Student] has been served in a substantially-separate program in the District, comparable to his last-accepted IEP, since the beginning of the 2025-2026 school year. This program, the one he was attending when the Hearing Request was filed and the one he is currently attending, should remain his stay-put placement pending resolution of the appeal.”

Also on October 14, 2025, Parents filed 11 exhibits in support of their Motion.[3]

Oral arguments on the Motion were heard on October 15, 2025, via a virtual platform.  A court stenographer was present. Both parties were represented by counsel.

For the reasons set forth below, Parents’ Motion is hereby ALLOWED, in part, and DENIED, in part.

ISSUE:

At issue in this ruling is whether, during the pendency of the current Appeal, the language-based, Language and Learning Disabilities program, in the Framingham Public Schools, agreed upon following the April 2025 team meeting, or an equivalent substantially separate language-based program is Student’s stay-put placement? 

FACTUAL FINDINGS AND RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

These findings are made for the purposes of this Ruling only and are subject to change in future rulings or decisions:

1. Student is an 11-year-old sixth-grade boy, enrolled in the Blackston- Millville Regional School District (BMRSD).

2. Student attended the Framingham Public Schools (Framingham) through the end of the 2024-2025 school year (5th grade).

3. On March 10, 2025, while Student was enrolled in Framingham ,the Framingham Team convened and proposed an IEP dated March 10, 2025, to March 9, 2026 (IEP Version 1). An N1 issued on March 17, 2025 indicates that the Team determined that Student required specialized instruction outside the regular education setting in reading, math, and writing, as well as executive functioning support inside the regular education classroom. IEP Version 1 proposed inclusion executive functioning services (2×30) and pull-out reading (4×45), math (5×45), and written language (5×45). Both the pull-out math and written language services were also to include “opportunities for inclusion.” This service delivery grid required Student to be out of the general education setting for 135 minutes on most school days, which is less than 60% of a standard school day. IEP Version 1 included a placement page calling for a substantially separate placement. The initial N1 also stated that the Team recommended an “extended evaluation” in a language-based learning disability program at Framingham’s Hemenway Elementary School. Extended School Year services were also proposed.  (P-2, S-1)

4. A revised version of the March 10, 2025, to March 09, 2026 IEP and a revised N1 (IEP Version 2) was issued on April 11, 2025. (S-2) The revised N1 states: “The team recommended the placement of a Language-Based Learning Disability Program (All English) at Hemenway Elementary School. The district will help the student and family with this transition.”  IEP Version 2 discontinues inclusion executive functioning services, pull-out reading (4×45), and pull-out math (4×45) services after April 7, 2025, proposing instead pull-out Academics (1×1350) and pull-out Written Language (5×45) through the end of the 2024-2025 school year and Reading (3×45 per 6- day cycle), Language Arts (1×270 per 6-day cycle ), Math (1×270 per 6- day cycle ), Academics (2×270 per 6-day cycle ), and Support (3×45 per 6- day cycle ) for the 2025-2026 school year. (S-2)

5. By letter from her attorney on April 17, 2025, Parents partially accepted and partially rejected the IEP dated March 10, 2025, to March 9, 2026 utilizing the signature pages from IEP Version 1.  (S-3, P-4) Their letter states Student required a substantially separate language-based program. (P-3)  Parents accepted the substantially separate placement. (S-3, P-3, P-4).   

6. The Framingham Team convened again on May 23, 2025. Framingham then issued a third, revised version of the 3/10/2025-3/9/2026 IEP (IEP Version 3) in June 2025. (P-5, P-6, S-4) This IEP added Specific Learning Disability as a disability category. (P-1, P-5, P-6, S-4) The N1 states that Student was responding well to the supports and structures of the “LLD program” and that goals were being updated “to include more specific objectives for the reading goal based on baseline data collected in the LLD program, and added a communication goal.” The IEP states that Student’s “specific learning disability affect[s] his ability to make progress in the general education setting as he requires a modified grade level curriculum and multi sensory reading program to meet his needs.” Specifically, the reading goal states: “Given a multimodal approach to phonics, [Student] will encode and decode words, sentences, and passages with target words.” The communication goal states, “Given direct teaching and opportunities to practice with support, [Student] will apply learned strategies to follow multi-step directions, participate in academic conversations using specific vocabulary and accurate sentence structure, and use language for self-advocacy in the therapy setting and moving into the classroom.”  (P-5, P-6, S-4)

7. The service delivery grid on IEP Version 3 includes C Grid pull-out Academics (1×1350), Speech and Language Therapy services (2×30), and  Written Language (5×45) through the end of the 2024-2025 school year. For the 2025-2026 school year, the following C Grid services were proposed: Reading (3×45 per 6-day cycle), Language Arts (1 x 270 per 6-day cycle ), Math (1×270 per 6-day cycle ), Academics (2×270 per 6-day cycle ), Support (3×45 per 6-day cycle ), Speech and Language Therapy services (1×45 per 6-day cycle). Extended School Year services were updated to include ESY Reading (3×30 min/week).  (P-5, P-6, S-4)

8. Framingham describes its LLD program as follows: “Learning and Language Disabilities (LLD): The program serves students with learning and language (receptive and expressive) disabilities. The class provides specialized reading instruction with a multi-sensory sequenced phonetic based reading program. Instruction incorporates strategies to address expressive and receptive language skills across the curriculum.” (P-8)

9. During the spring of 2025, Student attended the LLD program in Framingham. Student was taught by a licensed special education teacher. (P-9) An education consultant conducting an observation of the program at that time opined that the LLD classroom in which Student was enrolled employed language-based strategies. (P-7) 

10. The revised IEP issued by Framingham in June 2025 (IEP Version 3), calling for a substantially-separate LLD placement, was fully accepted by the Parent on August 26, 2025. (P-5, P-6, S-4)

11. According to Parents, the Framingham IEP called for a program with the following attributes:

1. A substantially separate language-based program.

2. Specialized reading instruction with a multi-sensory sequenced phonetic-based reading program.

3. Language-based structures and supports embedded throughout the day.

4. Instruction that incorporates strategies to address expressive and receptive language skills across the curriculum.

5. Peers who have similar language-based needs to Student.

6. Teachers trained by Landmark School on how to remediate language-based learning disabilities.

12. Parents moved to Blackstone in or about the summer of 2025.

13. Classes for the 2025-2026 school year began on August 27, 2025 in Blackstone.

14. By notice dated September 1, 2025, Blackstone provided Parents with an updated placement page changing the location of Student’s substantially-separate placement to Frederick Hartnett Middle School.

15. The Frederick Hartnett Middle School operates on a 5-day schedule instead of a 6-day schedule, which resulted in slight adjustments to the service delivery grid of the Framingham IEP.

16. Blackstone convened a virtual Team on September 12, 2025. Student’s new teachers reported that he had made a good transition into the District, and that he was actively advocating for himself. The teachers in his substantially-separate program felt that Student was capable of greater academic and social opportunities and suggested that he try participating in one subject in a resource room setting with support. Parents indicated that they would consider this proposal. Parent testified that the Team discussed whether Student’s program at Blackstone was a language-based program, and the District indicated that it was not. (Parent)

17. Blackstone scheduled a follow-up meeting for October 14, 2025 to discuss Student’s transition into the District, review additional data, and make any necessary revisions to the move­in IEP.  Parent testified that Student’s teacher, who is not licensed as a special education teacher and is serving a a long-term substitute, indicated at the meeting that she does not use evidence-based literacy programs to teach Student reading and that the peers in Student’s classroom do not all have language-based disabilities. (Parent)

18. At Blackstone, Student has been receiving services, accommodations, and working on the goals/benchmarks outlined in IEP Version 3. Since the District operates on a 5-day cycle, Student has been receiving services as follows: Separate Setting (C Grid): Written language (5×45), Speech and Language (1×45), Reading (3×45), Language Arts (1×225), Math (1×225), Academic Science/Social Studies (2×225), and Support (3×45). Specifically, although the Framingham IEP called for Language Arts (1×270 per 6-day cycle), the District is implementing Language Arts as 1×225 per 5-day cycle. Similarly, while the Framingham IEP also provided for Reading (3×45 on a 6-day cycle) and Support (3×45 on a 6-day cycle), those services are being provided 3×45 on a 5-day cycle in the District.

19. Student has attended the District’s substantially-separate program for approximately six weeks.

20. On September 30, 2025, Parents filed a Hearing Request with the BSEA with the following issues: 1) Whether the classroom that Blackstone has proposed for Student provides him with a free, appropriate public education; and 2) Whether the District has violated Student’s “stay-put” right by failing to provide him with his “stay-put” placement.

LEGAL STANDARDS:

1. Change of Residence

Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), when a student moves from one school district to another school district within the same state, the receiving district must “provide such child with a free appropriate public education, including services comparable to those described in the previously held IEP, in consultation with the parents until such time as the local educational agency adopts the previously held IEP or develops, adopts, and implements a new IEP that is consistent with Federal and State law.”[4] Pursuant to Massachusetts regulations, when an eligible student moves from one Massachusetts school district to another, “the last IEP written by the former school district and accepted by the parent shall be provided in a comparable setting without delay until a new IEP is developed and accepted.”[5]

Although neither the IDEA nor state regulations define “comparable,” the United States Department of Education’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (“OSERS”) has interpreted “comparable,” to mean “similar” or “equivalent” to the previous services.[6] One court found comparability where the receiving district, unable to replicate the unique educational environment of the old school district, offered a placement “that approximated the last agreed-upon IEP as closely as possible under the circumstances.”[7]   Other courts have looked to case law regarding the “stay-put” mandate,[8] in deciding whether receiving districts have complied with the IDEA’s transfer provision, as both aim to provide “stability in education.”[9] In both, the determination as to whether a school district has complied with its obligations is individualized, “fact intensive,”[10] and focuses on the student’s overall educational experience.[11]   

2. Stay-Put

The IDEA’s “stay-put” provision requires that unless the State or local educational agency and the parents otherwise agree, during the time that a parent and school district are engaged in an IDEA dispute resolution process, “… the child shall remain in the then-current educational placement of the child, or, if applying for initial admission to a public school, shall, with the consent of the parents, be placed in the public school program until all such proceedings have been completed.”[12] Preservation of the “status quo” assures that the student “stays-put” in the last placement the parents and the school district agreed was appropriate for him.[13] In addition, the stay-put provision reflects “the preference of Congress for maintaining the stability of a disabled child’s placement and minimizing disruption to the child while the parents and school are resolving disputes.”[14] Generally, the last accepted IEP is the stay-put IEP.[15] To determine a child’s “stay-put,” courts often look for the “operative placement,” or the IEP that is “actually functioning at the time the dispute first arises.”[16] It is established law that the “physical school alone does not constitute an ‘educational placement.’ [An] educational placement consists of the instruction and services spelled out in [Student’s] IEP.”[17] Judges in several United States Courts of Appeals have also examined the impact of the proposed change on the student.[18]  BSEA decisions and rulings have similarly applied these principles to identify the “operative placement” as well as to examine the impact on the student of the proposed change.[19]

Some courts have allowed school districts more latitude in the transfer context, recognizing that “[a]lthough the ‘stay put’ provision is meant to preserve the status quo, . . . when a student transfers educational jurisdictions, the status quo no longer exists.”[20] For example, in a case where it was not possible for the receiving school district to implement the student’s last agreed-upon IEP in full, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit looked more specifically to the IEP’s goals and the student’s educational placement to assess whether the district provided services that “approximate, as closely as possible, the old IEP.”[21] In general, however, courts have held that a change in placement for this purpose occurs when “a fundamental change in, or elimination of, a basic element of the educational program has occurred,”[22] or when a change in location “results in dilution of the quality of a student’s education or a departure from the student’s LRE [least restrictive environment]-compliant setting.”[23] On the other hand, “minor decision[s] alter[ing] the school day” such as modifications to the method of transportation to and from school or replacing one teacher or aide with another do not constitute changes in placement that would violate the stay put provision.[24] Courts have also held that changes in programs or classrooms do not constitute changes in placement where the school district provides “substantially similar classes.”[25]  

APPLICATION OF LEGAL STANDARDS:

To determine whether Blackstone provided “services comparable to those described in the previously held IEP”[26] in a “comparable setting,”[27] in conformance with federal and state law, I must examine Student’s Framingham IEP and placement and Student’s Blackstone program, focusing on whether Blackstone delivered services “similar” or “equivalent” to the previous services,[28] and whether Student’s Blackstone placement “approximated the last agreed-upon IEP as closely as possible under the circumstances.”[29]

Student’s last accepted IEP, which transferred to Blackstone with him from Framingham (IEP Version 3), included placement in an LLD program serving “students with learning and language (receptive and expressive) disabilities” and providing “specialized reading instruction with a multi-sensory sequenced phonetic based reading program [and which] incorporates strategies to address expressive and receptive language skills across the curriculum.” The following services were being implemented in Framingham pursuant to an accepted IEP: C Grid pull-out Academics (1×1350), Speech and Language Therapy services (2×30), and  Written Language (5×45).[30]  

According to the District,  Student has been receiving services, accommodations, and working on the goals/benchmarks outlined in IEP Version 3 in Blackstone’s substantially separate program. Because the District operates on a 5-day cycle, Student has been receiving services as follows: Separate Setting (C Grid): Written language (5×45), Speech and Language (1×45), Reading (3×45), Language Arts (1×225), Math (1×225), Academic Science/Social Studies (2×225), and Support (3×45).

While I agree that the services Blackstone has been providing to Student are comparable in duration and frequency to the services included in IEP Version 3, the two programs are not comparable. Specifically, there are fundamental changes and meaningful differences between the Framingham and Blackstone programs.[31]  While both programs are substantially separate, a language-based classroom was a core component of Student’s Framingham program. The N1 specifically references an LLD Program, which is defined in detail by Framingham as servicing a specific population of students with language-based learning disabilities with distinct supports (i.e., specialized reading instruction with a multi-sensory sequenced phonetic-based reading program). Moreover, Student’s goals and objectives were updated by Framingham in IEP Version 3 “to include more specific objectives for the reading goal based on baseline data collected in the LLD program, and added a communication goal.” Notably, Student’s reading goal anticipates the use of “a multimodal approach to phonics” to teach Student to “encode and decode words, sentences, and passages with target words.”

In contrast, Blackstone offered no evidence that its substantially separate program is specifically designed for students with language based disabilities. Nor was there any evidence that the program utilizes specialized reading instruction with a multi-sensory sequenced phonetic-based reading program, as the Student’s reading goal clearly requires.

While the District is correct that Student has been attending its substantially separate program since the start of the 2025-2026 school year, and that it was this program that was in effect when the Hearing Request was filed, this program is not the one which was proposed by Framingham in June 2025 and which Parents accepted in August 2025, and it is not comparable  to the one which Student attended at the end of the 2024-2025 school year. Specifically, it is not a substantially separate language-based program, and this distinction is significant and fundamental.

The District argued that, as Student has been attending the Blackston classroom for six weeks, removing him from said program would deny the purpose of the stay-put provision.  However, this argument ignores the District’s role in placing Student in this predicament.  As Hearing Officer Lindsay Byrne stated in Pilar & Agawam Public Schools, Ruling on Motion for Stay-Put,  BSEA No. 12-1714 (Byrne, 2011), “[i]n determining what constitutes a comparable placement for ‘stay put’ purposes the Hearing Officer does not consider the motivations of or degree of cooperation between the parties. Neither does she consider the fiscal, programmatic or staff resources available to them, or even the hardship that might result to the adult parties from the ‘stay put’ placement. The sole measure is comparability.”

In applying such “measure” here, I find that Student’s stay-put placement is not the Framingham in-District LLD Program; because Student and family have unilaterally decided to change residence, Student does not have a right to continue attending Framingham’s in-district program.[32]  Student is only entitled to attend a comparable program, not that specific one.[33]

As such, I find that Student’s stay-put program is a substantially separate language based classroom that: 1) serves students with learning and language (receptive and expressive) disabilities; 2) provides specialized reading instruction with a multi-sensory sequenced phonetic-based reading program; 3) provides instruction which incorporates strategies to address expressive and receptive language skills across the curriculum; and 4) is capable of implementing the goals and services of IEP Version 3.

ORDER:

Parents’ Motion for Enforce Stay-Put is hereby ALLOWED, in part, and DENIED, in part. Specifically, while the Framingham LLD program is not Student’s stay-put placement, his stay-put placement has the following components:

1. It is a substantially separate language-based classroom that serves students with learning and language (receptive and expressive) disabilities;
2. It provides specialized reading instruction with a multi-sensory sequenced, phonetic-based reading program;
3. It provides instruction that incorporates strategies to address expressive and receptive language skills across the curriculum; and
4. It can implement IEP Version 3.

By the Hearing Officer:

/s/ Alina Kantor Nir

Alina Kantor Nir

Dated:  October 16, 2025

---

[1] This was filed together with the District’s Response to the Hearing Request.

[2] These exhibits are labelled S-1 to S-4.

[3] These are labelled P-1 to P-11.

[4] 20 USC §1414(d)(2)(C)(i)(I) (applying to intrastate transfers within the same academic year); 34 CFR § 300.323(3) (same). See Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities and Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities, 71 Fed. Reg. 46540, 46682 (Aug.14, 2006) (clarifying with respect to this provision that when child moves to new school district before the next school year begins and an IEP was developed or reviewed and revised at or after the end of a school year for implementation during the next school year, the new school district could decide to adopt and implement that IEP, unless the new school district determines that an evaluation is needed. Otherwise, the newly designated IEP Team for the child in the new school district could develop, adopt, and implement a new IEP); see also J.F. v. Byram Twp. Bd. of Educ., 629 Fed. Appx. 235, 238 n.2 (3rd Cir. 2015) (unpublished) (applying statute to transfer that took place between school years, “because the transfer post-dated the creation of the IEP for the new school year,” and therefore “[t]he situation . . . resembles a mid-year transfer”).

[5] 603 CMR 28.03(c)(1).

[6] See 71 FR 46540, 46681. OSERS declined commenters’ suggestion to define “comparable services” in the regulations. See id.

[7] Ms. S. ex rel. G v. Vashon Island Sch. Dist., 337 F.3d 1115, 1134 (9th Cir. 2003).

[8] See Johnson v. Special Educ. Hearing Office, 287 F.3d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 2002) (District into which student had aged “can meet the requirements of the ‘stay put’ provision by providing comparable educational placement”). Cf. John M. v. Bd. of Educ. of Evanston Twp. High Sch. Dist. 202, 502 F.3d 708, 715-15 (7th Cir. 2007) (applying analytical framework from transfer cases to case involving stay put mandate). But see J.F., 629 Fed. Appx. at 236 (noting that transfer between districts results from parents’ unilateral move, not a change initiated by the school district, and as such, new district need only provide services comparable to those student received from old district).

[9] See, e.g., Verhoeven v. Brunswick Sch. Comm., 207 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1999) (in determining “then-current educational placement” in stay put context, courts have considered the essential purpose of this provision, which is to “preserve the status quo pending resolution of” the dispute concerning that child’s placement); Drinker ex rel. Drinker v. Colonial Sch. Dist., 78 F.3d 859, 864 (3d Cir. 1996) (“The provision represents Congress’ policy choice that all handicapped children, regardless of whether their case is meritorious or not, are to remain in their current educational placement until the dispute with regard to their placement is ultimately resolved”).

[10] Hale ex rel. Hale v. Poplar Bluff R-I Sch. Dist., 280 F.3d 831, 834 (8th Cir. 2002) (whether there has been a change in student’s “then-current educational placement” is a “fact-specific” inquiry that turns on the impact of change of placement on student’s education).

[11] See DeLeon v. Susquehanna Cmty Sch. Dist, 747 F.2d 149, 153 (3d Cir. 1984) (“touchstone in interpreting section 1415 has to be whether the decision is likely to affect in some significant way the child’s learning experience”).

[12] 20 U.S.C. §1415(j); see 34 CFR §300.514; M.G.L. c. 71B; 603 CMR 28.08(7); see Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 325 (1988); Verhoven v. Brunswick School Committee, 207 F.3d 1, 10 (1st Cir. 1999); M.R. and J.R. v. Ridley School District, 744 F.3d 112, 117 (3d Cir. 2014); see also In Re: Framingham Public Schools and Quin, BSEA # 1605247 (Reichbach, 2016); In Re: Abington Public Schools, BSEA # 1407763 (Figueroa, 2014).

[13] See Doe v. Brookline School Committee, 722 F.2d 910, 918 (1st Cir. 1983) (“We therefore join the Seventh Circuit in its view that (e)(3) establishes a strong preference, but not a statutory duty, for maintenance of the status quo .… We do not believe Congress intended to freeze an arguably inappropriate placement and program for the three to five years of review proceedings. To construe (e)(3) in this manner would thwart the express central goal of the Act: provision of a free appropriate education to disabled children”) (internal citations omitted).

[14] Student & Concord & Natick Public Schools (Corrected Ruling on Mother’s Request for “Stay Put” Order), BSEA # 18-00182 (Berman, 2017).

[15] See 20 U.S.C. §1415(j); 34 CFR §300.514.

[16] Drinker v. Colonial Sch. Dist., 73 F.3d 859, 867 (3rd Cir. 1996); Thomas v. Cincinnati Bd. of Edu., 918 F. 2d 618. 626 (6th Cir., 1990).

[17] D.K. v. D.C., 983 F. Supp. 2d 138, 146 (D.D.C. 2013).

[18] See A.W. v. Fairfax County Sch. Bd., 372 F.3d 674, 681–83 (4th Cir.2004) (concluding that educational placement referred to an “instructional setting” rather than to the “precise location of that setting” or the “precise physical location where the disabled student is educated).

[19] See In Re: Agawam Public Schools and Melmark-New England, BSEA # 1504488 (Berman, 2015).

[20] Ms. S., 337 F.3d at 1133, 1134 (recognizing that unlike stay-put case, “when a student falls under the responsibility of a different educational agency . . . the new agency need not provide a placement identical to that provided by the old agency,” and holding that “when a dispute arises under the IDEA involving a transfer student. . . the new district will satisfy the IDEA if it implements the student’s last agreed-upon IEP; but if [that] is not possible . . . the new district must adopt a plan that approximates the student’s old IEP as closely as possible”); J.F., 629 Fed. Appx. at 236 (noting that transfer between districts results from parents’ unilateral move, not a change initiated by the school district, and as such, new district need only provide services comparable to those he received from old district).

[21] Ms. S., 337 F.3d at 1133, 1134.

[22] Sherri A.D. v. Kirby, 975 F.2d 193, 206 (5th Cir. 1992).

[23] A.W., 372 F.3d at 682.

[24] 78 F. Supp. 3d 109, 116 (D.D.C. 2015).

[25] Weil v. Bd. of Elem. & Sec. Educ., 931 F.2d, 1069, 1072 (5th Cir. 1991).  

[26] 20 USC §1414(d)(2)(C)(i)(I).

[27] See 603 CMR 28.03(c)(1).

[28] 71 Fed. Reg, 46540, 46681.

[29] Ms. S., 337 F.3d at 1134.

[30] 603 CMR 28.03(c)(1). For the 2025-2026 school year, the following services were proposed, and later accepted by Parents: Reading (3 x 45 per 6-day cycle), Language Arts (1×270 per 6-day cycle), Math (1×270 per 6-day cycle), Academics (2×270 per 6-day cycle), Support (3×45 per 6-day cycle), and Speech and Language (1×45 per 6-day cycle).

[31] See Sherri A.D., 975 F.2d at  206.

[32] See cf. Student v. Public Schools of  Northborough and Southborough, BSEA # 25-04230 (Berman, 2024) (finding that “NECC, as a non-party, is not subject to an order from the BSEA…[and] that NECC is currently unavailable to Student”).

[33] See J.F., 629 Fed. Appx. at 236.