COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Student v. Worcester Public Schools
BSEA# 26-02859
RULING ON WORCESTER PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
This matter comes before the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) on Worcester Public Schools’ September 15, 2025, Motion to Dismiss (Motion), requesting that “the Hearing Officer dismiss Parent’s Hearing Request for lack of jurisdiction and/or failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Specifically, Worcester Public Schools (Worcester or District) states that the complaint must be dismissed in its entirety
- because the Student is a general education student and, therefore, Parent is not entitled to the due process protections available through the IDEA and under the jurisdiction of the BSEA; and 2) because the Parent, through her Hearing Request, is not seeking relief that the BSEA can grant. In fact, Parent does not want Student to be further evaluated and is seeking no special education services and supports from the District, but rather the right to continue home schooling Student as she has been doing.
On September 25, 2025, Parent filed her objection to the Motion, asserting that the matter should proceed to hearing as there is a live controversy regarding “the handling, use and disclosure of records” and that “dismissal would deny Parent a right to deny inaccuracies” as “[w]ithout BSEA intervention, those inaccuracies remain uncorrected in the public record and continue to prejudice Parent and Child.” Parent argued that although she was not seeking special education services for Student, the District’s evaluations included “mischaracterizations” on which the Department of Children and Families (DCF) relied to “suggest neglect.”
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 articulated below, the District’s Motion to Dismiss is ALLOWED.
RELEVANT FACTS:[1]
- Student is a ten year-old, sixth grade student who lives in Worcester, Massachusetts. Student has been and is currently homeschooled.
- On January 16, 2025, DCF requested an initial evaluation for special education services and supports. On February 7, 2025, Parent provided consent for the evaluation.
- In April and May 2025, the District conducted the initial evaluation, and on May 6, 2025, the Team convened to review the District’s initial evaluation and determine whether Student was eligible for special education services and supports. After reviewing the results of the District’s evaluation and considering input from Parent and DCF, the Team determined that Student was eligible for an IEP under the Disability Category of Specific Learning Disability (Written Expression and Math). The Team developed an initial IEP for Student for the period 05/06/2025 – 05/05/2026 with goals, consultation services and direct special education services in language arts and mathematics to address Student’s deficits in the areas of Writing for Language Conventions and Math Number Operations.
- The IEP developed by Worcester offered Student participation in a full inclusion program at Worcester’s Nelson Place Elementary School, and it proposed an extended evaluation in the area of occupational therapy to further assess Student’s fine motor skills and handwriting.
- On June 5, 2025, Parent fully rejected the initial IEP as developed (including the finding of eligibility) and refused the proposed placement. Parent also declined the extended evaluation.
- On September 5, 2025, Parent filed the instant Hearing Request disputing the District’s evaluation, the Team’s finding of eligibility, and seeking a determination that “the district’s proposed IEP is not appropriate for [Student] and infringes on our family’s rights as homeschoolers.” Specifically, Parent argues that the “proposed program requires [Student] to attend the district school for half the day, five days [per] week. This directly interferes with and effectively replaces his homeschooling program, which is not what our family wants or what Massachusetts law requires.”
- A request for postponement of the Hearing was received on September 25, 2025, and granted for good cause via order issued on October 2, 2025. The Hearing is scheduled to proceed on November 3,2025.
LEGAL STANDARDS:
- Motions to Dismiss:
Pursuant to Rule XVII A and B of the Hearing Rules and 801 CMR 1.01(7)(g)(3)[2], 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, BSEA 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.”[3] 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.”[4] These “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”[5]
- Jurisdiction of the BSEA:
20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6) grants the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (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.”[6] In Massachusetts, a parent or a school district, “may request mediation and/or a hearing at any time on any matter[7] concerning the eligibility, evaluation, placement, IEP, provision of special education in accordance with state and federal law, or procedural protections of state and federal law for students with disabilities.”[8] Furthermore, it is well established that matters that come before the BSEA must involve a live or current dispute between the Parties.[9] 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.”[10]
- Home-Schooled Students in Massachusetts:
Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws chapter 76, § 1, parents may homeschool their child with the advance approval by the district in which the child lives, under the policy that the school committee has adopted. Massachusetts state law requires school districts to offer special education and related services to all eligible students who reside in the district, including students who are privately enrolled, regardless of where the student attends school.[11] In Massachusetts, students who are home-schooled are considered privately enrolled students.[12]
DISCUSSION:
Taking as true the allegations in the complaint, as well as such inferences as may be drawn therefrom in Parent’s favor,[13] I find that the District’s Motion must be allowed.
Informed parental consent is required for a student to receive special education and related services.[14] Where parents refuse such consent, federal law provides that the school district “shall not be considered in violation of the requirement” to provide a FAPE, nor shall it be required to convene an IEP meeting or develop an IEP.[15] Under both federal and state law, where a parent “fails to respond to a request for, or refuses to consent to, the initial provision of special education and related services,” school districts are not permitted to file for a hearing “to obtain agreement or a ruling that the services may be provided to the child.”[16]
Here, Parent rejected the initial IEP. Such rejection rendered Student a general education student under the IDEA, resulting in the BSEA having no jurisdiction over Student’s educational matters. Moreover, although Parent asserts that “[w]ithout BSEA intervention, those inaccuracies remain uncorrected in the public record and continue to prejudice Parent and Child,” the BSEA does not have any authority to address allegations of educational record violations under either state or federal laws, unless such claims are also related to denials of FAPE.[17]
Parent disagreed with the District’s evaluations and the finding of eligibility, therefore, the relief she seeks falls outside the jurisdiction of the BSEA. Moreover, Parent’s concern regarding “inaccuracies” pertains to Parent’s ongoing DCF matter, not to the provision or denial of a FAPE. As the BSEA lacks jurisdictional authority over this matter, the District is correct that the case must be dismissed because Parent failed to assert a claim for which relief may be granted.
ORDER:
The District’s Motion to Dismiss is ALLOWED. The hearing scheduled for November 3, 2025, is hereby cancelled.
So Ordered by the Hearing Officer,
/S/ Rosa I. Figueroa
Rosa I. Figueroa
Dated: October 14, 2025
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 (1st 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] The information in this section is drawn from the Parties’ pleadings, is presumed to be true for purposes of this ruling only, and is therefore, subject to revision in further proceedings. In this Ruling, as I am required to do, I take Parent’s allegations in her Hearing Request as true as well as any inferences that may be drawn from them in her favor. See Blank v. Chelmsford Ob/Gyn, P.C., 420 Mass. 404, 407 (1995).
[2] Hearing Officers are bound by the BSEA Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals (Hearing Rules) and the Standard Rules of Adjudicatory Practice and Procedure, 801 Code Mass Regs 1.01.
[3] Iannocchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623, 636 (2008) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007)).
[4] Blank, 420 Mass. at 407.
[5] Golchin v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 460 Mass. 222, 223 (2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
[6] See 34 C.F.R. §300.507(a)(1).
[7] Limited exceptions exist that are not applicable here.
[8] 603 CMR 28.08(3)(a).
[9] See In Re: Student v. Bay Path Reg’l Vocational Tech. High Sch., BSEA # 18-05746 (Figueroa, 2018).
[10] In Re: Georgetown Pub. Sch., BSEA #1405352 (Berman, 2014).
[11] M.G.L. c. 71B, § 3.; 603 CMR 28.03(1)(e).
[12] 603 CMR 28.03(1)(e); see also Administrative Advisory SPED 2018-1, Guidance and Workbook for Calculating and Providing Proportionate Share Services for Students with Disabilities Enrolled by Their Parents in Private Schools, July 27, 2017, as revised July 2018 which may be found at https://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/advisories/2018-1.html. This is true for home-school students attending public school part time. See Questions and Answers on Serving Children With Disabilities Placed by Their Parents in Private Schools, Answer to Question I-3, OSEP QA 22-01, 80 IDELR 197 (OSERS 2022) (“Whether a home-schooled child with a disability is treated as a parentally-placed private school child entitled to be considered for equitable services or as a public school child entitled to receive FAPE is determined under State law. This is so, even if the child is permitted to attend public school for part of the school day. The responsible public agency, generally the LEA of residence, would have to make FAPE available to the child consistent with IDEA Part B requirements if the parent seeks to enroll the child with a disability in the public school full-time”).
[13] Blank, id.
[14] 20 USC 1414(a)(1)((D)(i); 34 CFR § 300.300(a)(2). See 34 CFR § 300.300(a)(1)(D)(II) (“If the parent of such child refuses to consent to services . . . the local educational agency shall not provide special education and related services to the child by utilizing” due process procedures); 34 CFR § 300.300(b)(3)(i).
[15] 20 USC § 1414(A)(1)(D)(i)(III); 34 CFR § 300.300(a)(3).
[16] 24 CFR § 300.300(b)(3)(i); 603 CMR § 28.08(3)(c) (“A school district may not request a hearing on a parent’s failure or refusal to consent to . . . initial placement of a student in a special education program”).
[17] 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”).