COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In re: Ian[1] and Triton Regional School District
BSEA #2603625
DECISION
This decision is issued pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq.), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. §794), the state special education law (M.G.L. c. 71B), the state Administrative Procedure Act (M.G.L. c. 30A), and the regulations promulgated under these statutes.
A hearing was held at the Bureau of Special Education Appeals on January 20, 2025, before Hearing Officer Amy Reichbach. Those present for all or part of the proceedings were:
Shannon Nolan Director of Student Services, Triton Regional School District
Sean Goguen, Esq. Attorney for Triton Regional School District
Kevin James, Esq.Former Attorney for Parents
Carol Kusinitz Court Reporter
The official record of the hearing consists of documents submitted by Parents and marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-7; documents submitted by Triton Regional School District and marked as Exhibits S-1 to S-6; approximately one hour of testimony and argument; and a one-volume transcript produced by a court reporter. Following testimony, oral closing arguments were made on January 20, 2026, and the record closed on that date.
INTRODUCTION
On September 24, 2025, Parents filed a Hearing Request against Triton Regional School District (Triton or the District), requesting that the BSEA order the District to modify Ian's school day to provide for a 20-minute early release, and to document this modification on his Individualized Education Program (IEP). According to Parents, Ian's autism spectrum disorder (ASD) requires that he and his siblings attend different schools. Parents must pick up their other two children at the same time Ian is dismissed, creating a scheduling problem that they wish to solve by picking Ian up from school early.[2] They contend that Ian has been dismissed from school early "through the side handicapped entrance," for the last 3 years, and that Triton's requirement this year that instead, they sign Ian out from school (indicating that they are choosing to dismiss him early), "come[s] with major issues [that] include, but are not limited to, safety, development, sensory breakdowns, self harm," and potential negative implications for his attendance.
The Hearing was initially scheduled for October 29, 2025.
On October 6, 2025, Triton filed its Response to Parents' Hearing Request. According to the District, Ian is first grader who attends the Triton Learning Center (TLC), a substantially separate Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA)-based program designed for children with ASD. He has been on an IEP since 2022, when he was in pre-Kindergarten. Ian's current IEP, dated 6/5/2025 to 6/4/2026, is highly specialized and provides for a 1:1 ABA aide for Ian's entire school day. This IEP was fully accepted and is reasonably calculated to provide Ian with a free appropriate public education (FAPE). Triton asserts that in September 2025, Parents requested that Ian's IEP be modified. The District convened the Team within a week of this request. At the meeting, Parents stated that they wanted Ian to be released from school 35 minutes early every day and permitted to exit the building through a door used for students who arrive or depart via alternative transportation, without being signed out by a parent or guardian. Triton denied this request, given staff members' concern that Parents' request would contravene the school's safety protocol regarding early dismissals and require Ian to miss valuable instruction time essential for him to receive a FAPE. Triton offered Parents several alternatives, but Parents rejected all of them. Triton contends that Parents' Hearing Request "is frivolous and was filed in bad faith."
On October 24, 2025, Triton filed an assented-to request to postpone the Hearing for two weeks, which was allowed for good cause and the Hearing was scheduled for November 13, 2025. On November 12, 2025, the parties jointly requested that the Hearing be postponed for an additional 11 days, noting that they had "settled the case," and required "sufficient time to draft and sign a written settlement agreement." The Hearing was postponed, for good cause, to November 24, 2025. On November 20, 2025, the District filed an assented-to request to postpone the Hearing to December 5, 2025, as Triton had forwarded a settlement agreement to Parents, through Counsel, and was awaiting their response. The Hearing was again postponed for good cause. On November 28, 2025, the parties jointly requested that the Hearing be postponed to January 20, 2026, as they had "made significant progress toward resolving the matter," and believed that additional "time to negotiate may resolve all issues and dispense with the need for a formal hearing." This request was allowed for good cause, and the Hearing was scheduled for January 20, 2026 at 12:30 PM.
Early in the morning on January 20, 2026, Parents (still through Counsel) filed a request for "leave to postpone the hearing," as they "intend to terminate the services of their present counsel and retain new counsel." Parents did not specify the length of the extension requested or propose alternative dates for the hearing, as required by Rule II(A)(1) of the Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals(BSEA Hearing Rules). Parents' attorney also filed a contemporaneous Notice of Withdrawal. Triton filed an objection to Parents' postponement request, arguing that such request, filed less than twelve hours before the commencement of the Hearing, was untimely; that the situation (i.e., Parents' decision to terminate counsel the morning of the hearing) was not an emergency; and that the District had already expended substantial cost on a case that is "frivolous and completely without legal basis." Shortly after the commencement of the business day, the undersigned Hearing Officer denied Parents' request as untimely and incomplete.[3] The Order denying their request provided that unless the Hearing Request were withdrawn the Hearing would proceed at 12:30 PM on the same day, and cautioned that failure by the moving party to appear at the Hearing may result in dismissal with or without prejudice, or in the Hearing going forward in its absence.[4]
Parents did not appear for Hearing, nor did they contact the BSEA regarding their nonappearance. Parents' former counsel appeared for Hearing, out of an abundance of caution. As he no longer represented Parents, he was excused. The District requested that the matter proceed to Hearing, as scheduled, and it did.[5]
The sole issue before me, derived from Parents' Hearing Request and the District's Response, is as follows: whether Triton's refusal to modify Ian's current IEP, dated June 5, 2025 to June 4, 2026, to provide for his release from school at 2:20 PM, or 35 minutes early every day,[6] and permit him to exit the building through a door used for alternative transportation without being formally signed out by a parent or guardian, amounts to a deprivation of a FAPE.
For the reasons below, I conclude that the District's refusal to accommodate these requests does not deprive Ian of a FAPE.
FINDINGS OF FACT[7]
Ian, who is seven years old, resides in Rowley, Massachusetts with Parents and his siblings. Ian attends Newbury Elementary School (NES), located in Newbury, Massachusetts. His siblings attend Pine Grove Elementary School (Pine Grove), located in Rowley. Both schools are part of the District, and both have the same dismissal time. (P-1; P-2; Nolan, I: 17, 22)
According to NES's 2025-2026 Student Handbook (Handbook), school start time is 8:25 AM and dismissal is 2:55 PM. The Handbook provides detailed dismissal procedures for students who leave school by car, under which all students who are picked up by a parent/guardian are to be dismissed at 3:00 and picked up at the auditorium entrance of the building.[8] (S-4)
The Handbook also outlines attendance expectations, procedures, and consequences in accordance with Massachusetts law, including compulsory attendance for students beginning in the September of the calendar year in which they reach the age of six. Pursuant to the Handbook, "[e]arly dismissals for any reason are discouraged." A written note is required for an early dismissal, including time, reason, and transportation details. Parents/guardians of elementary school students must sign them out at the office, with a form of identification. (S-4; Nolan, I: 18, 30-32)
Ian is a curious, engaging child whose strengths include responsiveness to movement-based breaks, outdoor play, and structured routines. He was six years old at the commencement of the 2025-2026 school year. (P-4; S-1)
Ian carries a diagnosis of ASD and a Communication Impairment. Challenges with oral expression impact Ian's ability to express his wants and needs, comment and ask or answer questions; challenges with listening comprehension impact his ability to understand novel information, follow directions, and participate in school activities. A neurodevelopmental evaluation conducted in December 2021 recommended that Ian receive ABA therapy, speech therapy, social skills, and occupational therapy within a substantially separate preschool classroom for children with ASD.[9] (P-1, P-4, P-6; S-1)
Parents fully accepted Ian's IEP for the period from 4/24/2023 to 4/23/2024. They also fully accepted Ian's corresponding placement within the TLC, Triton's substantially separate program for students who require intensive interventions using ABA principles, including discrete trial training. (P-1, P-4; S-1; Nolan, I: 24)
April 2025 speech and language testing demonstrated Ian's understanding of simple sentences and familiar one-step requests when paired with visuals, though verbal instruction often needs repetition and his full attention. Ian does not use speech but relies on multiple methods of communication. His areas of need impact receptive and expressive language skills, speech production, and social skills. Educational and psychological evaluations conducted in May 2025 indicated that Ian has multiple barriers impeding language and skill acquisition. and that he requires a high level of support throughout the entire school day to ensure that his communication, social, and behavioral needs are being met. According to a structured behavioral observation conducted in the same timeframe, Ian presents with limited communication skills and motivational variables and exhibits task refusal and self-injurious behaviors, primarily during challenging or non-preferred tasks. He struggles with generalizing learned skills and benefits from structured supports. An occupational therapy evaluation also performed in May 2025 showed some strengths as well as areas of need in hand strength and endurance, use of a functional grasp, pre-writing skill development, and bilateral coordination skills. (P-4; S-1)
Parents fully accepted Ian's IEP and placement within the TLC for the period from 6/5/2025 to 6/4/2026 (2025-2026 IEP). This IEP includes goals in Academics, Communication, Class Participation, Social Skills, Behavior, and Fine Motor Skills, which are addressed through a combination of consultation, inclusion services, and pull-out services with the support of a 1:1 instructional assistant across all settings. Pursuant to the 2025-2026 IEP, Ian spends most of his day in the TLC classroom with opportunities for inclusion during morning meeting, specials, recess, and special activities. He receives 1:1 adult support with behaviors, academic activities, fine motor and social skills, and communication. The IEP provides for specialized transportation services for Ian due to his disability, though it contains a note that Parents are currently choosing to transport Ian to and from school and that they should reach out if at any time they would like him to receive specialized transportation. If Parents elected to avail themselves of the specialized transportation, Ian's Team would meet to determine whether any accommodations were required, based on his needs. (P-4; S-1; Nolan, I: 23-25)
Ian's 2025-2026 IEP includes the following statement under Additional Information (Additional Information Statement, or Statement):
Updated on 6/5/2025: [Ian]'s parents are choosing to dismiss [Ian] early at 2:20 each day. [Ian]'s programming includes a full day, and transportation through his IEP is available. If at any point [Ian]'s parents would like him to stay the full day and utilize this service, they should let a member of his school-based team know so that transportation can be arranged. (P-3, P-4; S-1)
On August 29, 2025, NES Principal Patricia Hebert emailed Mother in response to an email Mother had sent to TLC teacher Elayne Bowes, requesting that Ian be dismissed at 2:20 to permit Mother to pick up her other children at Pine Grove at 2:55. Ms. Hebert explained that the last 45 minutes of the school day include instruction, closure routines, and important notices. She wrote, "Occasional early pickups are certainly understandable with advance notice; however, a daily/regular early dismissal isn't something we can approve, as it impacts your child's learning and attendance." Ms. Hebert offered to assist the family in problem-solving alternatives, such as adding another approved adult to the pickup list, exploring after-school on-site options, or coordinating with Pine Grove's schedule. (P-2)
Mother responded to Ms. Hebert the same day, explaining that for the previous years Ian attended NES, Parents were able to pick him up at the side entrance at 2:20, which was possible because Ian has a 1:1 aide per his IEP. This timing is necessary for Mother to pick up her other children at Pine Grove at regular dismissal time. Mother asked that Ian be permitted to continue to be dismissed through the side door at 2:20, and that his IEP be "adjusted with this requirement." (P-2; Nolan, I: 17)
Ms. Hebert and Mother exchanged several additional emails on August 29, 2025 regarding Parents' request. Ms. Hebert reiterated the school's position that it is important Ian not miss valuable instructional time. She acknowledged that the situation had been handled differently in the past, and explained that going forward, the expectation will be that Ian remains in school for the full day. Ms. Hebert noted that he is eligible for school-provided transportation, which would permit him to remain in school for the full day without conflicting with his siblings' schedules. She suggested a meeting between herself and Parents to discuss options and offered to permit early dismissal for the next week in the interim. Parents agreed to meet, requested that the District consider an afterschool care option with a 1:1 aide, and explained that they had declined school-provided transportation due to concerns with bus drivers' behavior.[10] Parents later declined the meeting, pointing to the Additional Information Statement in Ian's 2025-2026 IEP regarding their intention to pick Ian up early from school. Parents referred to this Statement in the IEP as "a legal binding document" that they would rely on until the 2026 annual review meeting, and asserted that if they were not permitted to pick Ian up from the side entrance with his aide, it "would violate his IEP." (P-2)
On September 2, 2026, Triton's Director of Student Services, Shannon Nolan,[11] reached out to Parents to explain the District's view of the Additional Information Statement. According to Ms. Nolan, the Statement indicates not that Ian's IEP includes a modified or shortened day, but that Parents have elected to dismiss him from school early. A shortened or modified school day cannot be approved by the principal, as it is a decision to be made by a student's Team. As such, if Parents continue to dismiss Ian from school early, they need to sign him out daily through the main office and an early dismissal will be documented. Parents disagreed, asserting that the practice of early pickups through the side door had worked for three years, that all Team members had agreed to it, and that the principal had allowed their request because it was "considered reasonable and necessary." Parents had requested that the Additional Information Statement be included in Ian's 2025-2026 IEP to avoid any issues, because an IEP is a legal binding document. At Hearing, Ms. Nolan testified that the Team had written the Statement into the IEP because at the time, Parents were dismissing Ian early and staff wanted to make sure that it was clear he was offered a full day. (P-3; Nolan, I: 17-20)
On September 16, 2025, Ian's Team reconvened to discuss Parents' request for a schedule modification. Parents, Ian's General and Special Education Teachers, Speech/Language Pathologist, and Board-Certified Behavior Analyst, as well as the Director of Student Services, the Educational Team Chair, and attorneys for both parties attended.[12] During the meeting, Parents provided the Team with a letter from Ian's Pediatric Neurologist, Dr. Margaret Bauman, dated September 5, 2025, which described Ian as carrying a diagnosis of ASD (Level 3), associated with a Speech and Language Disorder, a Sensory Processing Disorder, an Anxiety Disorder, and "Poor Safety Awareness." (P-5, P-7; S-2, S-3; Nolan, I: 25) Dr. Bauman wrote:
It is my understanding that [Ian]'s Educational Plan provides him with early dismissal at the end of the day due to fact that he can become overwhelmed and easily distracted when large groups of children are leaving the school building at the same time. Under these circumstances, his anxiety level is increased which leads to physical resistance, crying and running off, thus creating a significant safety risk.
In her letter, Dr. Bauman posited that early dismissal had been accommodated during the last school year, but that "new restrictions" had reportedly been placed on this arrangement. She requested that the previous early dismissal arrangements be reinstated, as the "new 'rules' are creating high levels of anxiety in an already emotionally fragile child and are creating a potential risk to his personal safety." (P-5)
The Team reviewed Dr. Bauman's letter during a 10-minute break and considered it when the meeting resumed. The Team did not agree with Parents' assertion that the information provided by Dr. Bauman supported the requested modification to Ian's schedule. (P-7; S-3)
During the meeting, Ms. Hebert reviewed the District's dismissal and attendance protocols to ensure student safety and stated that Parents could choose to continue dismissing Ian at 2:20 each day, but they needed to follow the same dismissal protocol that applies to all students. Triton staff explained that as this is the first year of Ian's compulsory attendance, his daily early dismissal would result in a loss of learning time that could impact his progress negatively. Parents requested information about what Ian was missing by leaving school early and Triton provided his daily schedule, showing that the last 35 minutes of Ian's school day includes 20 minutes of individual instruction and a dismissal routine. Ian's TLC teacher, Ms. Bowes, was particularly concerned about Ian missing these activities and expressed that he needs a full day of programming. Parents expressed their apprehension that if they were to sign Ian out of school early every day, he might be held back. The District explained that an early dismissal does not constitute an absence; if there were any possibility that Ian might not move to the next grade because he was not making progress, Triton would notify Parents and convene the Team. (P-7; S-2, S-3, S-4, S-6; Nolan, I: 26-27, 29-30)
During the meeting, the Team offered several alternatives to address Parents' scheduling issues, including specialized door-to-door transportation services. Triton also offered several options beyond the procedures outlined in the Student Handbook to support Ian's safety, should Parents elect to continue dismissing him early. Each option would allow Ian's 1:1 instructional assistant, who works with him throughout the day, to assist him with getting in the car safely. The first option presented was that Mother could park her car in the parking lot, enter the building, sign Ian out, and then Ian's 1:1 instructional assistant could accompany Ian and Mother to the parking lot. A second alternative would permit Mother to park in front of the main school entrance (at the front of the building), walk in and sign Ian out of school, and then the instructional assistant would meet her at the office with Ian and walk them outside to the car. Parents rejected these options, expressing their concern about the safety of the parking lot and the possibility that Ian would elope. Ms. Hebert then offered a third option, whereby Mother would sign Ian out then drive to the side door, where Ian was dismissed last year, and park her car, then his instructional assistant would take him out that door to the car. Parents rejected this option as well. They did not want to change Ian's routine. The District suggested that this would be an opportunity for him to learn skill-building through a new routine. (P-7; S-3; Nolan, I: 26-28)
On the same date as the Team meeting, Triton issued a N2 form notifying Parents of the District's refusal to modify Ian's schedule to a shorter day. According to the N2, Ian's disability-related needs do not require the schedule modification requested by Parents; in fact, it is contraindicated because Ian requires a full day of programming (390 minutes/day) during the school year, and extended year services, to access a FAPE. (P-7; S-3)
Following the meeting, Triton offered a fourth option, whereby the District would provide a van to transport Ian's sibling who is in preschool at Pine Grove (and therefore is dismissed from school 25 minutes earlier) from Pine Grove to NES, arriving in time for Mother to pick up both Ian and his sister from NES together and still arrive home in time to meet the third sibling, who would take the bus home. Parents refused this suggestion as well, as they did not want their children on the bus. (Nolan, I: 28-29)
Since the Team meeting on September 16, 2026, up to and including the date of the Hearing, Parents have continued to pick Ian up from school early. Mother pulls up to the side door, where Ian was always dismissed, and when the instructional assistant brings Ian out the door to the car to meet Mother, she also brings a clipboard that Mother uses to sign him out. Ian has not displayed any unsafe behavior during dismissal using this method. (Nolan, I: 32-33)
DISCUSSION
It is not disputed that Ian is a student with a disability who is eligible for special education services under state and federal law. To determine whether Parents are entitled to a decision in their favor, I must consider legal standards governing special education. As the party challenging the status quo in this matter, Parents bear the burden of proof.[13] To prevail, Parents must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that daily early dismissal of Ian from school, at 2:20 PM, is required for him to receive a FAPE.
Legal Standard for the Substantive Right to a Free Appropriate Public Education in the Least Restrictive Environment[14]
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was enacted "to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education . . . designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment and independent living."[15] To fulfill its substantive obligations pursuant to federal law, a school district is required to develop and implement an IEP tailored to a child's unique academic and functional needs.[16] To provide a FAPE, the IEP must be individually designed and reasonably calculated to confer a meaningful benefit.[17] It must include, "at a bare minimum, the child's present level of educational attainment, the short- and long-term goals for his or her education, objective criteria with which to measure progress toward those goals, and the specific services to be offered."[18] These elements should incorporate parental concerns; the student's strengths, disabilities, recent evaluations; and the child's potential for growth.[19] The goals contained in an IEP should be "appropriately ambitious."[20] Whether the IEP meets these standards for a particular child must be determined in the context of his individual potential.[21] An IEP "reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances" will be substantively sound.[22]
Under state and federal special education law, a school district has an obligation to provide the services that comprise a FAPE in the least restrictive environment.[23] To the maximum extent appropriate, therefore, a student with disabilities must be educated with his peers who do not have disabilities, such that "removal . . . from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services, cannot be achieved satisfactorily."[24] "The goal, then, is to find the least restrictive educational environment that will accommodate the child's legitimate needs."[25] For most children, a FAPE "will involve integration in the regular classroom and individualized special education calculated to achieve advancement from grade to grade."[26] However, when a student cannot receive a FAPE in this setting, a more restrictive environment, such as a private day school, is appropriate, as "the desirability of mainstreaming must be weighed in concert with the [IDEA]'s mandate for educational improvement."[27]
Finally, evaluating an IEP requires viewing it as a "a snapshot, not a retrospective. In striving for 'appropriateness, an IEP must take into account what was . . . objectively reasonable . . . at the time the IEP was promulgated.'"[28]
A substantive violation of the IDEA occurs where the content of an IEP is insufficient to afford the student a FAPE.[29] Not every refusal to accommodate a parent's preference regarding her child's IEP, however, violates the IDEA.[30]
Analysis[31]
In the instant matter, Parents' challenge is limited to Triton's refusal to amend Ian's current IEP to provide for his early dismissal every day, and to permit that dismissal to occur without Parents being required to sign him out from school. Therefore, I must determine only whether the District's failure to provide for a shortened school day for Ian, and Triton's requirement that should Parents elect to access same, they must sign him out from school (consistent with the established protocol laid out in the Student Handbook), constitutes a substantive violation of the IDEA – that is, whether Ian's disability-related needs require a shortened school day. I find that they do not.
Parents have fully accepted Ian's 2025-2026 IEP, and they have raised no issue regarding services or placement. He receives a plethora of services in a substantially separate setting and is supported throughout the day by a 1:1 aide. The last 35 minutes of Ian's school day include 20 minutes of individualized ABA instruction and a dismissal routine, both of which are important components of his learning. The record is devoid of any evidence suggesting that Ian's disability-related needs require a shorter school day. Rather, Parents rely on their personal and logistical difficulties as the basis for modifying the length of Ian's school day. Such issues, however, are wholly irrelevant to my analysis and ultimate decision as to whether Ian's IEP is reasonably calculated to provide him with a FAPE. [32]
I find that Triton has clearly established procedures regarding how, when, and where students who are picked up from school by parents or guardians are to be dismissed. The District also has a clearly established protocol governing early dismissal of a student whose parent or guardian elects to pick him up before the end of the school day. Such protocol, requiring written notice of the time, reason, and transportation details for a student's early dismissal, and requiring that the parent or guardian sign the student out, allows Triton to monitor students' attendance, whereabouts, and safety during school hours. Moreover, the Student Handbook discourages early dismissals, consistent with State law regarding compulsory attendance for students Ian's age.
I do not find persuasive Parents' argument that the language contained in the Additional Information Statement of the IEP constitutes a proposal by the District for a modified school day for Ian. I agree with Ms. Nolan's testimony and her explanation, in her September 2, 2025 email to Parents, that the Additional Information Statement in Ian's 2025-2026 IEP does not indicate that Triton has proposed a modified or shortened school day for him. Rather, it reflects that Parents communicated to District personnel that they were electing to pick Ian up from school early every day, despite the full-day program proposed by his Team, and that Parents had also been offered (and declined) specialized transportation for him. Although Parents are free to decline transportation for any reason, I find Ms. Nolan's testimony regarding the District's ability to create individual plans for safe transportation of other students in the TLC with ASD to be credible.
I also do not find Dr. Bauman's letter persuasive. First, it refers to Ian's "Educational Plan" as providing for an early dismissal due to his tendency to become overwhelmed, distracted, and anxious when large groups of children are leaving the school building. As explained above, Ian's IEP does not, and never has, provided for early dismissal as part of his program. Even if Dr. Bauman read the Additional Information Statement incorrectly as providing for one, there is no evidence before me to support either her contention that an early dismissal was allowed during the previous school year to address the concerns she raised nor that one is currently required for said reasons. Parents did not mention such concerns in any of their correspondence with the District, nor were any presented at Hearing. To the extent modifications could be made to Ian's dismissal at the standard time to avoid large groups (i.e. being dismissed with his aide through a separate door), none were discussed, because none were requested.
The evidence demonstrates that NES staff have been flexible and creative in offering Parents multiple options to mitigate their scheduling concerns, and that Parents have refused each one for reasons unrelated to Ian's educational needs. (Even now, Parents are permitted to deviate from the established protocol for early dismissals, as Mother signs Ian out via his aide when she picks him up at the side door rather than at the office.)
Under these circumstances, Parents have failed to demonstrate that Triton's refusal to provide for daily 35-minute early dismissals of Ian from school and to permit him to leave school without being signed out from school by a parent or guardian, violates his right to a FAPE.[33] In fact, Parents have produced no credible evidence to support their position.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
After reviewing the record in its entirety in the context of relevant case law, I conclude that Triton did not violate, and is not violating, Ian's right to a FAPE; and, further, that the modifications Parents have requested to Ian's schedule and the early dismissal protocol are not required for him to receive a FAPE.
So Ordered.
By the Hearing Officer:
/s/ Amy M. Reichbach
Dated: February 18, 2026
Footnotes
[1] "Ian" is a pseudonym chosen by the Hearing Officer to protect the privacy of the Student in documents available to the public.
[2] According to Parents, they refused the transportation offered by the District for lack of a 1:1 aide, and the District denied their request for an aide to remain with Ian after school.
[3] See BSEA Hearing Rule II(A)(1)-(2).
[4] See BSEA Hearing Rule IX(F).
[5] As Parents had not contacted the BSEA, the Hearing commenced at 1:00 PM. Three days later, on January 23, 2026, Parents emailed the Hearing Officer without copying opposing counsel, to "notify [the Hearing Officer] that [they] want to withdraw without prejudice." The undersigned Hearing Officer forwarded Parents' email to Counsel for Triton and responded to both parties, explaining that as Parents had not withdrawn the Hearing Request prior to commencement of the Hearing, the Hearing had, in fact, proceeded in their absence in accordance with the Order denying their last postponement request.
[6] Although Parents request a 20-minute early release in their Hearing Request, they actually seek to have Ian dismissed from school at 2:20, which is 35 minutes before the standard dismissal time of 2:55.
[7] I have carefully considered all evidence presented in this matter. I make findings of fact with respect to the documents and testimony, however, only as necessary to resolve the issues presented.
[8] The Handbook instructs families that parking in the driveway or pickup area will result in ticketing by the police. (S-4)
[9] The evaluator diagnosed Ian with ASD Level 3, with language and cognitive impairments, requiring very substantial support for deficits in social communication and for restrictive, repetitive behaviors. (P-6)
[10] Staff responded in an email indicating that Triton provides transportation to many students in the TLC program who carry ASD diagnoses, and that these students' Teams work closely with the transportation company to develop individuals plans for each student. Neither Ian nor either of his siblings has never been transported to or from school on a school bus. (P-2; Nolan, I: 20-22, 23-24)
[11] Ms. Nolan is in her fifth year as Triton's Director of Student Services, having previously worked as a special education teacher, an assistant principal, and a principal. She has a master's degree in education, a certificate in special education, and a Certificate of Advanced Graduate Studies (CAGS) in administration. (Nolan, I: 15-16)
[12] Parents waived the occupational therapist's attendance. (S-2)
[13] See Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 62 (2008).
[14] As Parents have not alleged procedural violations, I limit my analysis to the substantive components of a FAPE.
[15] U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A).
[16] See Endrew F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist., 580 U.S. 386, 401, 403 (2017); D.B. v. Esposito, 675 F.3d 26, 34 (1st Cir. 2012).
[17] See 20 U.S.C. § 1401 (9), (26), (29); 603 CMR 28.05(4)(b); Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 201 (1982); Lessard v. Wilton Lyndeborough Coop. Sch. Dist., 518 F. 3d 18, 23 (1st Cir. 2008); In Re: Student v. Arlington Public Schools, BSEA #2503543 (Kantor Nir, 2024). Similarly, Massachusetts FAPE standards require that an IEP be "reasonably calculated to confer a meaningful educational benefit in light of the child's circumstances" and designed to permit the student to make "effective progress." See CMR 28.05(4)(b) (IEP must be "designed to enable the student to progress effectively in the content areas of the general curriculum"); C.D. v. Natick Pub. Sch. Dist., 924 F.3d 621, 624-25 (1st Cir. 2019) (cert denied); In Re Carly v. Franklin Public Schools and Acton-Boxborough Regional School District, BSEA #2412891 (Reichbach, 2025).
[18] Esposito, 675 F.3d at 34 (internal citations omitted).
[19] See 34 CFR 300.324(a)(i-v); Esposito, 675 F.3d at 34; N. Reading Sch. Comm. v. Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, 480 F. Supp. 2d 479, 489 (D. Mass. 2007).
[20] Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 402.
[21] See Rowley, 458 U.S. at 201; In Re: Boston Public Schools, BSEA #1308779 (Berman, 2014).
[22] Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 403.
[23] See 20 U.S.C § 1412(a)(5)(A); 34 CFR 300.114(a)(2)(i); M.G.L. c. 71 B, §§ 2, 3; 603 CMR 28.06(2)(c).
[24] U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A); C.D., 924 F.3d at 631 (internal citations omitted).
[25] C.G. ex rel. A.S. v. Five Town Comty. Sch. Dist., 513 F.3d 279, 285 (1st Cir. 2008).
[26] Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 401.
[27] C.D., 924 F.3d at 626 (quoting Roland M. v. Concord Sch. Comm., 910 F.2d 983, 993 (1st Cir. 1990)); see In Re: Swansea Public Schools, BSEA #2207178 (Berman, 2022).
[28] Roland M., 910 F.2d at 992 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
[29] See Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 403; In re: Zeke, BSEA #2200246 (Reichbach, 2022). See also Falmouth Sch. Dep't v. Doe ex rel. Doe, 44 F.4th 23, 35 (1st Cir. 2022) (concluding school district violated right to a FAPE of a student with an orthographic processing disability by continuing to propose IEPs that relied on the same type of reading instruction under which he had shown limited progress for two years, rather than requesting additional evaluations or considering a change in methodology); P.K. ex rel. S.K. v. Dep't of Educ., 526 Fed. Appx. 135, 139-40 (2nd Cir. 2013) (school district violated student's right to a FAPE by proposing an IEP that failed to provide the "substantial related services and greater individualized attention" through one-to-one instruction that the student needed to make educational progress and receive an educational benefit).
[30] See Amann v. Stow Sch. Sys., 982 F.2d 644, 651 (1st Cir. 1992); Gonzalez v. Puerto Rico Dep't of Educ., 969 F. Supp. 801, 811 (D.P.R. 1997); see also In Re: Isa v. Hingham Public Schools, BSEA #2500461 (Reichbach, 2024) ("Nor does a school district's determination to place a child in a setting other than that selected by certain experts or the child's parents constitute a substantive violation, so long as the program offered is reasonably calculated to provide the child with a FAPE").
[31] I incorporate by reference the factual findings made in Part II, above.
[32] Cf. Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 403 (an IEP "reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances" will be substantively sound).
[33] See Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 403; Rowley, 458 U.S. at 200; Esposito, 675 F.3d at 34.