COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Student v. Triton R.S.D.
BSEA# 26-00394
RULING REGARDING ACCELERATED STATUS
On July 10, 2025, Parents filed a Hearing Request in the above-entitled matter and requested that the hearing be assigned accelerated status pursuant to Rule II(D)(1)(b) of the Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals (Hearing Rules), which states, in pertinent part, that accelerated status may be granted when the hearing request asserts that “the special education services the student is currently receiving are sufficiently inadequate that harm to the student is likely.”
Consistent with usual BSEA practice, the BSEA Director reviewed the Hearing Request and determined that the allegations therein met the criteria for accelerated status as referenced in Rule II. On July 11, 2025, the Director issued a standard letter to the parties which stated, in relevant part:
The request appears to meet the standard for accelerated status, pursuant to Rule II.D of the Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals. A Hearing Notice reflecting an accelerated hearing date is therefore enclosed. In the event that any party disagrees with this determination, please notify the assigned Hearing Officer who may then elicit additional information and decide as to the status of the request.
On the same date, the BSEA issued a Notice of Accelerated Hearing which established a hearing date of August 11, 2025.
On July 14, 2025, the Triton Regional School District (“Triton” or “District”) filed correspondence objecting to Parents’ request for accelerated status, stating that Parents have “insufficiently pled facts that would support their claim” that none of the criteria for such status has been met, and arguing that “conclusory statements, without more, do not provide a basis for accelerated status.” The District’s correspondence also contained factual assertions in support of its position that no harm would result to Student if the hearing were to proceed according to the standard schedule.
On the same date, counsel for Parents filed a response via email, contending that the District’s objection should be treated as a Motion for Reconsideration of the grant of accelerated status, since such status already had been granted prior to the District’s filing of same, disputing the contention that the allegations in the Hearing Request were “conclusory,” and seeking confirmation that the matter continues to be assigned accelerated status.
DISCUSSION
As stated by Parents, this matter was assigned accelerated status prior to Triton’s filing its notice of objection. As such, I treat the District’s correspondence as a Motion for Reconsideration (Motion) of such assignment, and construe Parents’ July 14 emailed communication as a Response thereto. To address the parties’ dispute over whether such status should continue, I will examine the hearing request, as well as Triton’s Motion and Parents’ Response.
Relevant Allegations in the Hearing Request
The allegations made in support of Parents’ request for accelerated status are distilled below,[1] as follows:
- Student is a thirteen-year- old rising eighth grader who currently is enrolled in Triton Middle School. His most recently proposed IEP calls for the “Reach” program, which is a full inclusion placement consisting of support within general education classes, and a substantially-separate academic support period as well as counseling.
- Student has a longstanding history of ADHD and anxiety. In January 2025, he received an additional diagnosis of Functional Neurological Symptom Disorder (FNSD) from Boston Children’s Hospital, which causes physical symptoms, including fainting. In March 2025, a private neuropsychologist diagnosed Student with Social (Pragmatic) Communication Disorder, and Specific Learning Disorder with impairment in reading (Dyslexia) and described Student as “an emotionally fragile” student “in a state of acute psychological distress and is no longer able to access learning in his current educational setting.”
- During the spring of 2025, Student’s emotional and physical condition deteriorated. He experienced fainting spells, panic symptoms, and thoughts of self-harm. He was frequently absent from school and expressed that “he would rather die than live like this.”
- The above-referenced neuropsychologist reported that Student’s return to his current school setting would be “clinically contraindicated,” that Student requires placement in a therapeutic school setting, and, pending availability of such setting, should receive home tutoring with therapeutic oversight, participation in a partial hospitalization or day treatment program, if appropriate; or “temporary instruction in a low stimulation, small group setting with access to behavioral supports.”
- At a Team meeting in April of 2025, Triton was apprised of Student’s condition and reviewed the above-referenced report. The Team declined to offer placement in a separate therapeutic setting, but, rather, offered the “Reach” program at Triton Middle School which was, in essence, another full-inclusion placement with academic support and counseling.
- Despite his participation in the Reach program, Student’s condition continued to decline after the April 2025 meeting. On June 6, 2025, due to acute levels of depression and anxiety, including suicidal ideation, he entered a partial hospitalization program (PHP) in New Hampshire. He has remained in the PHP from that date to the present, with an unknown discharge date. The PHP has recommended a therapeutic school placement. Student was unable to access school from the beginning of his partial hospitalization on June 6, 2025, until the end of the 2024-2025 school year.
- After a Team meeting on June 12, 2025, at which Triton reviewed the recommendations of the PHP, as well as further testing conducted by the District, Triton issued a proposed IEP for the 2025-2026 school year that would continue Student’s full inclusion placement, albeit with additional counseling and an added goal. Parents partially rejected this proposed IEP on July 8, 2025.
Parents’ Claims for Relief
Parents allege that during the 2024-2025 and 2025-2026 school years, Triton violated Student’s rights under multiple statutes and regulations, including Federal and state special education statutes, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, and reserve the right to seek monetary damages in a judicial proceeding. The hearing request contains nine claims for relief, the first four of which are quoted below:
- An order finding Triton’s IEPs and Amendments for the 2024-2025 and 2025-2026 school years were and are not appropriate and are not reasonably calculated to offer [Student] a FAPE;
- An order finding that [Student] requires a substantially separate therapeutic day school program and placement with a small student to staff ratio and appropriate cohort of peers with intensive therapeutic services provided across the curriculum and embedded throughout the school day in line with the recommendations from [Student’s] private evaluators and current clinical providers;
- An order that Triton immediately and prospectively place [Student] at a substantially separate therapeutic day school and fund all costs associated with this placement…;
- An order that a referral be sent to New England Academy in Beverly, MA.
Requests 5 through 9 seek compensatory services corresponding to the 2024-2025 school year, findings of “intentional discrimination” and “deliberate indifference” relative to denial of FAPE and response to reported disability-based harassment/bullying during 2024-2025 school year; reimbursement for expenditures for private evaluations; payment of attorney’s fees and costs, and “such other relief as may be just.”
Triton’s Objection to Accelerated Status
Triton’s Objection to accelerated status is summarized below:
- Student successfully attended school during the spring of 2025, missing only 10 days after April 2025 and earning final grades of A’s and B’s as a result of the supports provided by the District.
- At all relevant times, Triton has adjusted Student’s IEPs to respond to his evolving needs, and the proposed IEP for 2025-2026 contains therapeutic supports that reflect recommendations of a private neuropsychologist retained by the District.
- The letter from Student’s provider which recommended a therapeutic placement did not indicate that the services Student is currently receiving are sufficiently inadequate that harm is likely.
ANALYSIS
Upon reviewing the Hearing Request and the District’s objection to accelerated status, I conclude that accelerated status is warranted with respect to Parents’ claims for prospective relief, i.e., their requests for placement in a therapeutic day school and a referral to New England Academy (Claim 1 as it pertains to the 2025-2026 IEP, through Claim 4). I base this conclusion on Parents’ allegations that after reporting physical and emotional distress during the 2024-2025 school year, Student was unable to attend school and entered a PHP program between June 6, 2025, and the end of the school year, despite the District’s having made changes to Student’s IEP in response to his escalating needs.
According to the Hearing Request, Student continues to attend the PHP, and no discharge date has been determined. There is no information available to suggest that Student’s condition has changed such that he would be able to enter the District’s proposed program at the start of the 2025-2026 school year with different results, assuming he has been discharged from the PHP at that time. As such, I find that Parents have alleged sufficient facts to support a grant of accelerated status with respect to Claims for Relief Nos. 1 (as to the 2025-2026 IEP, only) through 4. An accelerated hearing on the issue of prospective placement is necessary to ensure that an appropriate setting is available for Student by or near the beginning of the 2025-2026 school year.
Parents’ remaining claims, Nos. 5 through 9, seek compensatory relief, findings regarding the 2024-2025 IEP, and findings and conclusions regarding discrimination on the part of Triton. These claims for relief do not meet the criteria for accelerated status, and may be heard on a standard schedule. A conference call is scheduled for July 29, 2025, during which the parties and Hearing Officer will discuss bifurcation of the hearing and related scheduling matter.
ORDER
Unless otherwise agreed by the parties and Hearing Officer, the above-entitled matter shall remain designated as accelerated with respect to Claims For Relief Nos. 1 (as to the IEP for 2025-2026, only) through 4. Claims Nos. 5 through 9 shall be assigned non-accelerated status. The details of scheduling will be discussed at the conference call on July 29, 2025, at 4:00 PM.
By the Hearing Officer,
/s/ Sara Berman
Sara Berman
Date: July 21, 2025
[1] Parents’ hearing request is 16 pages long and includes multiple exhibits. The hearing request contains background information dating back to 2022. For purposes of this Ruling, I consider only the allegations put forward in support of accelerated status.