COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Pioneer Valley Chinese Immersion Charter School,
Springfield Public Schools & Student BSEA#s 2601931, 2614195
RULING ON SCHOOL DISTRICTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE
On August 6, 2026, Pioneer Valley Chinese Immersion Charter School (PVCICS) and Springfield Public Schools (SPS, and collectively, the Schools) filed the School Districts’ Joint Motion for Pre-Hearing Conference (Schools’ Joint Motion), requesting that the hearing officer convene an in-person pre-hearing conference with the parties. Specifically, the parties stated that the requested pre-hearing conference would not delay the hearing date unless all parties request or assent to a postponement for the purpose of scheduling the pre-hearing conference; and that issues in the instant cases are unclear, such that the cases should not proceed directly to hearing without a prehearing conference. The Schools requested that a) the prehearing conference convene to clarify and simplify the issues as well as review the possibility of settlement of the case; b) the parties be prepared to discuss their respective positions and the relief each seeks through the hearing; and c) the parties and/or their counsel have full authority to settle the case or have immediate access to such authorization. According to the Schools, for the Hearing Officer to be able to execute her duties at Hearing in this matter, an in-person prehearing conference is necessary to define the issues and ensure an orderly presentation of the evidence. The Schools submitted that in furtherance of her duties, the Hearing Officer “may (and indeed must) request that the parties proffer statements of the issues; define the issues; place reasonable limits on the presentation of evidence to prevent undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence; and regulate the presentation of the evidence and the participation of the parties for the purpose of ensuring an adequate and comprehensible record of the proceedings.”
Via email on the same day, Parents’ Counsel responded, declining to participate in a pre-hearing conference, and reiterating that the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) lacks the power to compel a prehearing conference.
On August 10, 2026, Counsel for PVCICS wrote,
“It is impossible to conduct our business efficiently and meaningfully under these circumstances. Opposing counsel’s lengthy and dense filings and correspondence, together with her refusal to engage meaningfully in BSEA prehearing conferences, have effectively frustrated the parties’ ability to narrow the issues, identify areas of agreement, and make meaningful progress toward resolution. The parties should not be required to navigate an unnecessarily burdensome process in which the volume and complexity of one party’s submissions, coupled with that party’s unwillingness to engage constructively in prehearing discussions, effectively hold the proceedings in abeyance. This approach has imposed substantial and unnecessary burdens on the parties and has impeded the efficient resolution of the matter.
This is especially true given that we have no information about the student’s current status and are expecting him to return to his stay put placement at PVCICS without further communication from the parents (while we believe the student is still hospitalized, the family submitted a transportation request for him to attend PVCICS for the 2026-27 school year despite acknowledging that the school is unable to provide the student with FAPE).”
LEGAL STANDARD AND APPLICATION OF LEGAL STANDARD:
1. Legal Standard:
In the current iteration of the BSEA Hearing Rules, most recently revised in July 2024, prehearing conferences are governed by Rule IV. Pursuant to Hearing Rule IV(A), absent extraordinary circumstances, a prehearing conference shall not delay the hearing date unless a party requests or assents to a postponement for the purpose of scheduling a prehearing conference. According to Hearing Rule IV(B), the purpose of a prehearing conference is to,
clarify or simplify the issues as well as review the possibility of settlement of the case. At the prehearing conference, the parties shall be prepared to discuss their respective positions and the relief each seeks through the hearing. Not every case will require a prehearing conference. If the issues are clear, a case may proceed directly to hearing.
A prehearing conference may address:
• clarification of issues;
• remedies;
• identification of areas of agreement and disagreement;
• discovery;
• date for exchange of exhibits;
• length of hearing;
• need for an interpreter and/or stenographer;
• settlement;
• prehearing conference orders; and/or
• organization of the proceedings.
Participants in a prehearing conference must have full authority to settle the case or have immediate access to such authorization.”
Moreover, under Hearing Rule IV(D),
“When one party or neither party requests a prehearing conference, a Hearing Officer shall determine whether a prehearing conference is necessary. If the Hearing Officer determines that a prehearing conference is necessary, the conference may be scheduled but shall not delay the hearing date.”
2. Application of Legal Standard:
Hearing Rule IV(D) authorizes a Hearing Officer to convene a prehearing conference when the Hearing Officer determines that one is necessary; it does not require a conference merely because a party requests one. Here, the Schools have not demonstrated that a prehearing conference is necessary to ensure the orderly or efficient resolution of the instant matters. Nor does the Schools’ stated interest in settlement warrant compelling a conference over Parents’ objection. Settlement remains available through voluntary means, and the Hearing Rules do not require participation in settlement discussions as a condition of proceeding to hearing.
Parents have expressly declined to participate in a prehearing conference. On the present record, I find that the issues can be addressed through the existing hearing process, including appropriate prehearing submissions and orders. The accompanying Order sets forth directives to clarify the issues for hearing and confirm the Student’s current status. Should circumstances warrant, I retain authority to issue further directives concerning clarification of the issues, organization of the proceedings, exhibits, witnesses, hearing length, or other matters within my authority.
Nor would Parents’ refusal to participate in a prehearing conference provide a basis for default. Although Hearing Rule IV(D) permits a Hearing Officer to convene a prehearing conference without the parties’ consent, the current Hearing Rules do not provide a mechanism for defaulting a party for failing to appear at a non-statutorily required proceeding.[1] Accordingly, the Schools’ Joint Motion is DENIED.
ORDER:
The Schools’ Joint Motion is hereby DENIED. The parties shall proceed in accordance with the existing hearing schedule, the following pre-hearing directives and any other directives issued by the Hearing Officer.
By the close of the business day on August 12, 2026, the parties are instructed as follows:
1. If any party disagrees with the following statement of the issues, said party must file its own restatement of the issue(s).
a) Issues for which PVCICS bears the burden of proof[2]:
1. Whether Parents' refusal to consent to PVCICS's proposed change in placement to the school district of residence (i.e., Springfield) in March 2025 resulted in the denial of а FAPE to Student, rendering substitute placement consent appropriate?
2. Whether Student was entitled to extended school year [ESY] services in the summer of 2025, and if so, whether PVCICS was required to provide transportation services for its extended school year program for a special education student who did not receive special transportation as а related service?
3. Whether the Physician’s Affirmation of Need for Temporary Home or Hospital Education for Medically Necessary Reasons provided to PVCICS by Parents on October 10, 2025, constituted a valid authorization for medically-necessary home-based education from September 30, 2025, through October 30, 2025?
4. Whether the Physician’s Affirmation of Need for Temporary Home or Hospital Education for Medically Necessary Reasons provided to PVCICS by Parents on October 31, 2025, constituted a valid authorization for medically-necessary home-based education from October 30, 2025, through November 30, 2025?
5. Whether home-based education constitutes a FAPE for Student for said timeframe (i.e., September 30, 2025 through November 30, 2025)? and
6. Whether PVCICS is entitled to substitute consent to conduct a home assessment and for an extended evaluation of Student?
b) Issues for which Parents bear the burden of proof[3]:
1. Whether PVCICS failed to consistently provide Student with direct ВСВА services, and/or to implement the Student's behavior intervention plan, during the 2024-2025 and 2025-2026 school years, and as such denied Student а FAPE?
2. Whether PVCICS's failure to timely propose to conduct evaluations during the 2024-2025 school year, and its failure to timely conduct evaluations to which Parents consented in May 2025 and November 2025, denied Student а FAPE and denied Parents the ability to timely and meaningfully participate in educational decision-making regarding their child?
3. Whether PVCICS's March 2025 IEP and placement were reasonably calculated to provide Student with а FАРЕ?
4. Whether PVCICS's willful failure to provide transportation to the Student in the summer of 2025 denied him access to his ESY program and deprived Student of a FAPE; and
5. Whether PVCICS's failure to provide timely home/hospital tutoring for Student deprived Student of a FAPE?
6. Whether PVCICS previously mischaracterized PDES?
7. Whether PVCICS complied with applicable procedural requirements relative to the proposal of PDES?
8. Whether PVCICS denied Parents meaningful participation in the Team process through which PDES was proposed?
9. Whether PVCICS’s March 2026 IEP calling for placement at PDES denied Student a FAPE?
10. Whether Parents are entitled “reimbursement for their out-of-pocket expenses (including but not limited to their evaluations), … compensatory education of 12+ months in an out-of-district separate day placement consistent with the recommendations of Parents' private evaluators which largely align with the March 13, 2026 developed IEP, and [an order that PVCICS] send out referral packets broadly to explore what placements may be able to implement the same (including but not limited to NEARI, Tate - Positive Regard, Hillcrest, May Institute, Mill Pond, Branches School of Berkshire, CABI, and Devereaux).”
2. Parents shall provide an update on whether Student will be able to attend school at the start of the 2026-2027 school year.
3. As Parents’ Counsel has indicated her unavailability on September 1, 2026 for the currently scheduled Hearing due to an unexpected Hearing date with Hearing Officer Amy Reichbach on a different matter, the parties shall provide their availability for October through December 2026.
So Ordered by the Hearing Officer,
/s/ Alina Kantor Nir
Alina Kantor Nir
Dated: August 11, 2026
Footnotes
[1] On February 27, 2019, the Director of the BSEA issued a Memorandum regarding “Rule Changes, BSEA Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals” (the Memorandum), that summarized revisions being made to the BSEA Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals (Hearing Rules), effective March 1, 2019, “in response to differentiated monitoring and support (DMS) activities conducted by the [United States]’ Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) during an on-site visit to the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education [(DESE)] on May 8-10, 2017; consideration of public comments received; as well as on-going dialogue with OSEP.” Paragraph III.1 of the Memorandum, titled “Other Changes,” states that “[f]ormer Hearing Rule V E [relative to pre-hearing conferences] is deleted in response to OSEP’s observation that a party may not be defaulted for failure to appear at a non-statutorily required proceeding.”
[2] The issues are taken from PVCICS’s pleadings.
[3] Issues #1 through 5 and 10 are taken verbatim from Parents’ Hearing Request and Issues #6 through 9 were previously identified in my August 6, 2026 Ruling on Multiple Motions in this matter.