COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Pioneer Valley Chinese Immersion Charter School BSEA #: 2601931
RULING ON PIONEER VALLEY CHINESE IMMERSION CHARTER SCHOOL'S MOTION TO POSTPONE HEARING
AND ON
PARENTS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND FOR SANCTIONS
AND
PARENTS' MOTION TO JOIN SPRINGFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT AS A NECESSARY PARTY
On March 5, 2026, Pioneer Valley Chinese Immersion Charter School (hereinafter "PVCICS" or "the District") requested to postpone the hearing currently scheduled for Thursday, March 12, 2026, Friday, March 13, 2026, and Monday, March 16 to Thursday, March 19, 2026, and Friday, March 20, 2026. The request is based on Counsel's recent absence from February 24 through March 3 due to a death, funeral, and shiva, as well as a schedule filled with court appearances and meetings on March 4 to 6 that prevented adequate preparation of exhibits and a witness list.
On the same day, after business hours, Parents filed Parents' Response To PVCICS's Motion To Postpone Hearing And Parents' Motion To Compel Discovery And For Sanctions And Parents' Motion To Join Springfield Public School District As A Necessary Party, supported by 3 exhibits, asserting that that they have not yet received previously requested student/education records from PVCICS or a full accounting of the period during which the charter school lacked a BCBA. They argue they would be prejudiced if forced to proceed without the outstanding discovery and adequate time to review records, supplement exhibits, and identify additional witnesses. They also contend that PVCICS has not joined Springfield Public Schools, Student's district of residence and a potentially responsible party, to the action. Moreover, in response to PVCICS's proposed rescheduled dates of March 19 and 20, Parents assert that their counsel, and several witnesses are unavailable on such dates, and they anticipate that two hearing days will be insufficient given the scope of the case and the number of witnesses. Thus, while Parents do not oppose postponement if the hearing is rescheduled to mutually agreeable dates, Springfield Public Schools is joined, and they have sufficient time to review the outstanding records. They otherwise oppose postponement and request sanctions barring PVCICS from presenting exhibits or witnesses at the hearing.
Also after business hours on March 5, 2026, counsel for PVCICS responded via email, asserting that Springfield Public Schools is not a necessary party and arguing that, had the request been made in good faith, Parents' Counsel would have moved to join Springfield months earlier. PVCICS further stated that the student record had already been produced to Parents' Counsel. Although PVCICS acknowledged that production occurred with some delay, it noted that Parents' Counsel had not made a formal discovery request and that production was implemented, nevertheless. PVCICS also asserted that Parents already possess the majority of the student record and therefore should not be hindered in preparing for the hearing.
Because neither party requested a hearing on the Motions, 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).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND RELEVANT FACTS:
These facts are subject to revision in future rulings and Decision.
Student is a 3rd grade resident of Springfield, Massachusetts, who receives special education services via an Individualized Education Program (IEP) at PVCICS. His IEP notes the disability categories of autism, communication impairment, developmental delay, and health impairment. Student is also diagnosed with PANS/PANDAS.
PVCICS delivers a substantial portion (currently 50% of Student's 7.5 hour School day, or 3.75 hours per day) of its curriculum in Mandarin Chinese. During the Mandarin portion of the day, all staff and students are required to communicate and interact strictly in Chinese. Direct instruction in some core subjects is delivered only in Mandarin. According to the District, "this aspect of PVCICS's curriculum has proven to be extremely challenging, triggering, and dysregulating for Student. Additionally, because he steadfastly refuses to communicate using Chinese, Student is deprived of meaningful social experiences and interactions for at least 50% of his School day."
On January 28, 2025, March 4, 2025, and March 27, 2025, Student's IEP Team convened to develop Student's annual IEP and determine placement. Springfield Public Schools, Student's district of residence, attended the March 27, 2025 Team Meeting during which placement was discussed. The Team proposed that Student would make effective progress in a setting where instruction was delivered in English. The IEP Team, with a representative of the School District of Residence , determined that Student required placement in a full inclusion setting wherein all instruction is delivered in English, and PVCICS proposed full inclusion as Student's placement type. An IEP was developed after the March 27, 2025, meeting, but the proposed placement was listed as a full inclusion program with location "TBD".
According to PVCICS, Parents refused to collaborate with Springfield because they do not wish to consider a change in Student's placement.[1]
On April 10, 2025, PVCICS issued an N1 and IEP for the period 1/28/2025 to 1/27/2026 (January 2025 IEP) with goals and services in the areas of Speech Sound Production, Pragmatic Social Language/Social Skills, Self-regulation, OT Fine/Visual Perceptual Motor, Sensory Motor Skills, Phonics, Math, and Writing. No direct BCBA services were proposed in the January 2025 IEP. A full inclusion placement was proposed with the location listed as "TBD".
On May 7, 2025, Parents partially rejected the January 2025 IEP and rejected the placement. They asserted stay-put rights to any removal, reduction, or changes to the services, accommodations, location, and placement from the last accepted IEP dated 12/14/2023 to 12/13/2024. In part, Parents rejected the removal of Goal 10, "Behavior," and the corresponding B-Grid Behavior Support (by BCBA) for 60 minutes weekly. They also rejected the removal of ESY services and requested that transportation services, including a bus monitor, be added to the IEP. Moreover, Parents rejected the placement to the extent the location is written as "TBD" and should indicate Pioneer Valley Chinese Immersion Charter School and requested a full Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) be completed while Student is in Mandarin class.
On August 9, 2025, the District filed a Hearing Request with the BSEA seeking a finding that PVCICS was unable to provide Student with a free appropriate public education (FAPE); that substitute consent was needed "to effectuate [Student's] proposed but rejected IEP and placement in an appropriate program in his district of residence"; that Student did "not exhibit substantial regression during school breaks and therefore is not eligible for extended school year (ESY) services; and that PVCICS was "not required to provide transportation for ESY services for students with disabilities who do not require specialized transportation."
On November 3, 2025, PVCICS amended the Hearing Request to add the following issues:
Whether a Physician's Affirmation of Need for Temporary Home or Hospital Education for Medically Necessary Reasons provided to PVCICS by the parents on October 10, 2025, constitutes a valid authorization for medically-necessary home-based education from September 30, 2025, through October 30, 2025 (currently)?
Whether the Physician's Affirmation of Need for Temporary Home or Hospital Education for Medically Necessary Reasons provided to PVCICS by the parents on October 31, 2025, constitutes a valid authorization for medically-necessary home-based education from October 30, 2025, through November 30, 2025? and,
Whether home-based education constitutes a free and appropriate public education for Student?
On December 19, 2025, Parents retained their now-Counsel.
On January 8, 2026, PVCICS's Counsel indicated via email that she would provide Parents' Counsel with a complete copy of the student record. Parents Counsel also requested that PVCICS provide "a full accounting of the extended time period that the Charter School did not have a BCBA on staff."
On February 11, 2026, Parents' Counsel followed up with PVCICS's Counsel via email, stating "As previously requested, please provide a complete copy of all Student/Education records regarding [Student] in PDF/electronic format."
On February 12, 2026, PVCICS's Counsel responded to Parents' Counsel via email, stating, "I will be redacting [Student's] student record this weekend and will provide you with a copy upon completion."
On February 24 and, again, on February 25, 2026, Parents' Counsel followed up with PVCICS's Counsel via email for a copy of the Student Records.
LEGAL STANDARDS AND APPLICATION OF LEGAL STANDARDS:
Motion to Compel Discovery and Sanctions
Legal Standards:
Rule V of the BSEA Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals (Hearing Rules) governs the discovery process before the BSEA. Rule V(A) advises that "the parties are encouraged to exchange information cooperatively and by agreement prior to the hearing." Additionally, parties can request of other parties that they produce documents or answer up to 25 interrogatories within thirty (30) calendar days of being served such requests, unless a Hearing Officer orders otherwise.[2] Objections to any discovery requests can be made within ten (10) calendar days of service of the request, or parties can move for a protective order within that timeframe as well.[3]
Furthermore, 801 CMR 1.01(8)(i)[4] authorizes parties who do not receive some or all of the requested discovery responses or answers to file a Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery. 801 CMR 1.01(8)(i) further authorizes a Hearing Officer to issue orders regarding such failure,
"… as are just, including one or more of the following:
1. An order that designated facts shall be established adversely to the Party failing to comply with the order; or
2. An order refusing to allow the disobedient Party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses, or prohibiting him or her from introducing evidence on designated matters."
Application of Legal Standards:
Here, while Parents' Counsel has requested a copy of Student's educational record, to which Parents are entitled, it does not appear that the request was made as part of the discovery process, and I have no authority to issue an order compelling discovery where no discovery requests have been made. As such, Parents' Motion to Compel is DENIED.
Nevertheless, pursuant to 603 CMR 23.07(2), the eligible student or the parent, subject to the provisions of 603 CMR 23.07(5), shall have access to the student record. Access shall be provided as soon as practicable and within ten days after the initial request. Moreover, under the IDEA, districts must comply with a parent's inspection or review request: 1) without unnecessary delay; 2) before any IEP meeting, resolution session, or due process hearing; and 3) in no case more than 45 days after the request has been made.[5] As such, to the extent that it has not yet done so, PVCIC must comply with Parents' student records request immediately.
Motion to Join Springfield Public Schools As A Necessary Party
Legal Standards:
Joinder
Rule 1(J) of the Hearing Rules allows a Hearing Officer to join a party upon written request, in cases where "complete relief cannot be granted among those who are already parties, or the person being joined has an interest relating to the subject matter of the case and is so situated that the case cannot be disposed of in their absence." This Rule lists the following factors to be considered in determining whether a person or entity should be joined: "the risk of prejudice to the present parties in the absence of the proposed party; the range of alternatives for fashioning relief; the inadequacy of a judgment entered in the proposed party's absence; and the existence of an alternative forum to resolve the issues."[6]
Application of Legal Standards:
Whether these criteria are met in the instant case turns on whether Springfield Public Schools, Student's school district of residence (SDOR), has actual or potential programmatic or fiscal responsibility for Student under statutory and regulatory provisions allocating responsibility for special education students enrolled in charter schools. Pursuant to 603 CMR 28.10(1), school districts shall be programmatically and financially responsible for eligible students based on residency and enrollment. With respect to program schools, including charter schools, the regulation provides that "a program school shall have programmatic and financial responsibility for enrolled students…."[7] "Any school district deemed responsible for a student under 603 CMR 28.10 shall continue responsibility for such student until another school district is deemed responsible under 603 CMR 28.10."[8]
In addition, pursuant to 603 CMR 28.10(6)(a)
"For charter schools, Commonwealth of Massachusetts virtual schools, vocational schools, or schools attended under M.G.L. c. 76, § 12A (Metco), when the Team determines that the student may need an out-of-district placement, the Team shall conclude the meeting pursuant to 603 CMR 28.06(2)(e) without identifying a specific placement type, and shall notify the school district where the student resides within two school days.
Upon a determination as in 603 CMR 28.10(6)(a), the program school shall schedule another meeting to determine placement, and shall invite representatives of the school district where the student resides to participate as a member of the placement team pursuant to 603 CMR 28.06(2)(e)(1).
The Team meeting convened by the program school shall first consider if the school district where the student resides has an in-district program that could provide the services recommended by the Team, and if so, the program school shall arrange with the school district where the student resides to deliver such services or develop an appropriate in-district program at the program school for the student.
If the placement Team, in accordance with the procedures of 603 CMR 28.06(2)(e), determines that the student requires an out-of-district program to provide the services identified on the student's IEP, then the placement proposed to the parent shall be an out-of-district day or residential school, depending on the needs of the student. Upon parental acceptance of the proposed IEP and proposed placement, programmatic and financial responsibility shall return to the school district where the student resides. The school district where the student resides shall implement the placement determination of the Team consistent with the requirements of 603 CMR 28.06(3)."
An "out-of-district program" is "a special education program located in a building or facility outside of the general educational environment that provides educational services primarily to students with disabilities." [9] It is defined to include all programs approved under 603 CMR 28.09, whether operated by a private organization or individual, a public school district, or a collaborative.
According to DESE's Technical Assistance Advisory SPED 2014-5, an "out-of-district program" may be operated by a public school district, but "a specialized or substantially separate program operated within a school district building that serves students with and without disabilities is not considered an out-of-district program." Furthermore, the Advisory requires that the placement Team propose an in-district program to the parent, if the school district of residence has an in-district program able to provide the services recommended by the IEP Team, either alone or as a supplement to services available at the charter school. The Advisory states:
"In any case, when in-district programming is proposed by the placement Team and the student remains enrolled in the charter school, the charter school retains programmatic and financial responsibility for the student. The charter school has full discretion over where it will propose to deliver any in-district programming. The charter school is not required to contract with the SDOR for service delivery unless the charter school chooses to do so.
Because enrollment at the charter school is always voluntary on the part of the parent, the parent may elect to disenroll from the charter school and enroll, instead, back at the SDOR for any reason. However, the charter school may not require the parent to disenroll at any time as a condition for receiving any service, except when the student is to be educated in an out-of-district program."
Here, the IEP Team, including a representative of the SDOR , determined that Student required placement in a full inclusion setting wherein all instruction is delivered in English, and PVCICS proposed full inclusion as Student's placement type. As such, it appears that 603 CMR 28.10(a)(2) is the relevant regulation; specifically, the Team considered and concluded that Springfield, Student's school of residence, has "an in-district program that could provide the services recommended by the Team," and the next step would have been for PVCICS, the program school, to "arrange with [Springfield] to deliver such services or develop an appropriate in-district program at the program school for the student." However, this is where a dispute arose between Parents and PVCICS. As Parents have not chosen to disenroll from PVCICS and enroll, instead, back at Springfield, and, as PVCICS may not require Parents to disenroll at any time as a condition for receiving any service (except when a student is to be educated in an out-of-district program, which, here, has not been recommended for Student), PVCICS remains programmatically and fiscally responsible for Student. As such, Springfield is not a necessary party, and joinder is not appropriate. Parents' Motion to Join Springfield is DENIED.
Motion to Postpone
Legal Standards:
BSEA Hearing Rule III (A) governs requests for postponement. Pursuant to this rule, a party may request postponement of a hearing at least 6 business days before the scheduled hearing date, and the Hearing Officer may grant this request for good cause.[10] The decision whether to postpone a hearing is within the discretion of the Hearing Officer, who must give serious consideration to opposition to a request. Similarly, 801 CMR 1.01(7)(d) states that
"[f]or good cause shown a scheduled hearing may be continued to another date: by agreement of all Parties with the permission of the Presiding Officer, provided the Presiding Officer receives a letter confirming the request and agreement before the hearing date; or by written motion to continue made by a Party at least three days prior to the hearing date; or by the Presiding Officer on his or her own motion or upon a motion to continue made at the scheduled hearing."
The timelines for due process hearings and reviews described in 34 CFR § 300.515(a) and (b) may only be extended if a hearing officer or reviewing officer exercises the authority to grant a specific extension of time at the request of a party to the hearing or review.[11]
Application of Legal Standards:
As PVCICS's Counsel has been unavailable to prepare for hearing due to bereavement, I find that she has articulated good cause for a short postponement. A short postponement will also allow Parents to inspect and review Student's records.
However, as Parents are unavailable on the dates proposed by PVCICS, the parties are instructed to provide the Hearing Officer with their availability for March and April 2026 by the close of business day on March 9, 2026. PVCICS's Motion to Postpone is ALLOWED, in part.
ORDER:
Parents' Motion to Compel is hereby DENIED. Nevertheless, to the extent that it has not yet done so, PVCICS must comply with Parents' student records request immediately and no later than the close of business day on March 9, 2026.
Parents' Motion to Join Springfield hereby is DENIED.
PVCICS's Motion to Postpone is ALLOWED, in part. The parties are instructed to provide the Hearing Officer with their availability for March and April 2026 by the close of business day on March 9, 2026.
So Ordered,
/s/ Alina Kantor Nir
Alina Kantor Nir, Hearing Officer
Date: March 6, 2026
Footnotes
[1] According to the District, Parents have actively prevented PVCICS from proposing a specific placement location via their refusal to engage with Springfield to determine which specific placement location in the District would be proposed.
[2] See BSEA Hearing Rule V(B)(1) and (2).
[3] See BSEA Hearing Rule V(C).
[4] Pursuant to the Scope of the Rules section introductory to the BSEA Hearing Rules, "Unless modified explicitly by these Rules, hearings are conducted under the Formal Standard Adjudicatory Rules of Practice and Procedure, 801 CMR 1.01 et seq."
[5] See 34 CFR § 300.613(a).
[6] BSEA Hearing Rule I(J).
[7] Id.
[8] 603 CMR 28.10(1)(d).
[9] 603 CMR 28.02. In contrast, an "in-district program" is "a special education program operated in a public school building or other facility that provides educational services to students of comparable age, with and without disabilities."
[10] See BSEA Hearing Rule III (A); see also 34 C.F.R. §300.515.
[11] See 34 C.F.R. §300.515(c).