COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Student v. Springfield Public Schools and the Department Of Children and Families
BSEA # 2605261
DECISION
This decision is issued pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 USC 1400 et seq.), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 USC 794), the state special education law (MGL c. 71B), the state Administrative Procedure Act (MGL c. 30A), and the regulations promulgated under these statutes.
A hearing was held via a virtual platform on May 11, June 1, and June 18, 2026, before Hearing Officer Alina Kantor Nir.[1] Student was represented by an Education Guardian Ad Litem (GAL). Springfield Public Schools (Springfield or the District) and the Department of Children and Families (the Department or DCF) were represented by counsel. Those present for all or part of the proceedings, all of whom agreed to participate virtually, were:
Student
Kelly LaRoe Guardian Ad Litem- Education Surrogate
Dajzuan Springer Director at CHD - Residential Program
Ellen Crowley Attorney for Springfield
Jeffrey Welch Senior Administrator of the Student Assignment Services, Springfield
Kelli L. Phillips Evaluation Team Leader, Springfield
Kristin Braithwaite Attorney for DCF
Linda Singer Principal of Springfield High School
Dr. Marisa McCarthy Chief of Exceptional Learning and Related Services, Springfield
Mary Ellen Pope Special Education Supervisor, Springfield
Sarah Bowler DCF Adoption Supervisor
Stephanie Guyette DCF Social Worker
Lisa Mercier Student’s Court-Appointed Attorney
Erika Gleason BSEA Intern, Observer
Iman Aoun BSEA Intern, Observer
Olivia Syat BSEA Intern, Observer
Melissa Lupo Court Reporter
Rebecca Baron Court Reporter
The official record of the hearing consists of documents submitted by GAL and marked as P-1 through P-21; documents submitted by Springfield and marked as Exhibits S-1 through S-28; documents submitted by DCF and marked as Exhibit DCF-1[2]; approximately three days of oral testimony and argument; and a three-volume transcript produced by a court reporter. At the parties’ request, the record was kept open until July 16, 2026, to allow the parties to submit written closing arguments, which they did, and the record closed on that day.[3]
I. ISSUES IN DISPUTE:
The following issues are in dispute[4]:
1. Whether Springfield failed to consult with GAL when providing a comparable setting for Student?
2. Whether Student’s program at Springfield High School was comparable to Student’s last accepted placement (including whether Springfield was obligated to offer Student door-to-door transportation)?
3. Whether Student received a FAPE between December 18, 2025 and March 12, 2026, before the accepted IEP was proposed?
4. Whether Springfield predetermined Student’s placement for the Individualized Education Program (IEP) for the period March 13, 2026 to March 12, 2027 (the March 2026 IEP), and, if so, whether GAL was denied meaningful participation in the placement decision relative to the March 2026 IEP?
5. Whether Commerce High School’s (Commerce) Social-Emotional Behavioral Supports (SEBS) program is an appropriate placement for Student such that it is the least restrictive environment in which the District can implement the accepted March 2026 IEP, and, if the answer is no, then whether Student’s placement should be at “Central High School, with inclusion and SEBS supports”?
II. FACTUAL FINDINGS:
1. Student is 16 years old and is enrolled in the District. He is currently in DCF custody and has an extensive trauma history. (S-16) Student is eligible for special education and related services pursuant to the Emotional Disability Category. (S-23) He currently attends Springfield High School located in Springfield, Massachusetts. (Singer, Pope, S-25) Student has no criminal charges or convictions. (Student)
2. Sarah Bowler is Student's DCF Adoption Supervisor and custodian, and Stephanie Guyette is Student's DCF social worker. Ms. Bowler supervises Ms. Guyette but, despite serving as Student's custodian, does not make educational decisions. Ms. Bowler meets with Student at least monthly, during which they often discuss school. Student is highly aware of his trauma history. According to Ms. Bowler, GAL, not DCF, is responsible for making all educational decisions on behalf of Student. (Bowler)
3. During the 2024-2025 school year, prior to attending Springfield, Student attended the South Hadley School District (South Hadley). According to Student, at South Hadley he had access to clubs and sports, and his high school there was “better” than his current one. (Student)
4. While attending South Hadley, Student accumulated multiple disciplinary referrals. (S-3, S-4, S-21) On or about December 2024 or January 2025, Student was referred for an initial evaluation for special education eligibility due to concerning behaviors at school. (S-4, S-17)
5. On January 22, 2025, South Hadley held a manifestation determination review (MDR) for Student for the following infractions: impeding/lying during investigation, using profane language, false reporting, and defiant behavior. The MDR Team found these behaviors to be a manifestation of Student’s suspected disabilities of Communication and Health (Executive Functioning). (S-4)
6. Due to behavioral concerns in school, including impulsivity, sensationalized thoughts, bullying, using the phrase “I am going to rape them” frequently, and making racially charged statements in the classroom, on January 31, 2025, the South Hadley Team proposed, and Student’s then-foster parent accepted, an extended evaluation to take place from February 7 until April 10, 2025, in the therapeutic transition classroom (TTC) at South Hadley High School. (S-5, S-6, S-7, S-21)
7. TTC serves students whose primary needs are social, emotional, and/or behavioral. The program is designed for students whose needs require a smaller, structured therapeutic setting for all or part of the day. A higher staff-to-student ratio is maintained with individualized programming to meet students’ needs. The ultimate goal is for students to learn and practice appropriate social and/or coping skills for emotional regulation while working towards partial or complete inclusion in general education classes. (S-12)
8. In February 2025, while third-party South Hadley-funded bilingual speech-language and clinical psychology evaluations were pending, South Hadley began its own psychoeducational evaluation to determine Student’s eligibility. (S-5, S-6, S-7) Teacher BASC-3 ratings reflected clinically significant depression, anxiety, and somatization concerns. Also identified were significant executive functioning deficits in problem-solving, attention, behavioral control, and emotional regulation. Recommendations included therapeutic counseling and programming targeting executive functioning skills. (S-16)
9. While the publicly funded bilingual evaluations were still being completed, on February 7, 2025, South Hadley held an initial Team meeting for Student. The Team determined that Student was eligible for special education under the Disability Category of Emotional. With the intention of developing the IEP in full once the full psychological and speech-language assessments were completed, a partial IEP for the period February 7, 2025 to February 6, 2026 was developed, with goals in the areas of executive functioning and social/emotional, and the following services: C Grid: Executive Support (6 x 40 minutes per cycle), Executive Functioning (6 x 15 minutes per cycle), and Counseling (30 minutes per cycle). Transportation was not indicated as a necessary related service. The accommodations included instruction in a small setting. Placement was proposed in a substantially separate classroom at South Hadley High School following the extended evaluation at TTC.[5] (hereinafter, the South Hadley IEP). (S-2)
10. In March 2025, Student underwent the publicly funded bilingual speech-language evaluation. Based on the results, Student did not present with a deficit in oral communication. (S-15)
11. In April 2025, Student was found to have 628 adult pornography images and/or videos on his school-issued Chromebook. He had also distributed some of the images. Student received a three-day external suspension and a one-day internal suspension for these infractions. (S-21)
12. On August 14, 2025, Student’s DCF social worker notified Springfield that Student would be relocated to and enrolling in the District on October 23, 2025. (McCarthy, S-9)
13. Dr. Marisa McCarthy is the Chief of Exceptional Learning for Springfield. She has served in that role for two years. Dr. McCarthy has a master’s degree in educational psychology and a doctorate in educational leadership. When a student transfers to Springfield with an IEP, the District reviews the IEP, determines a comparable placement, and assigns the student to a school that can provide the services outlined in the student’s IEP. (McCarthy)
14. At the start of the 2025-2026 school year, while still attending South Hadley, Student was reported to have made statements that he was going to “shoot up the school.” He was removed on an emergency basis but was later allowed back in school and engaged in a restorative lunch detention. (S-21) Also on September 11, 2025, South Hadley proposed, and GAL accepted, additional assessments for Student. (S-8)
15. On October 28, 2025, Angela Roy, Area Resource Coordinator for DCF, notified Springfield, including Jeffrey Welch, the Senior Administrator of the Student Assignment Services (SAS) in Springfield,[6] that Student had moved to a permanent placement within the District and requested a Best Interest Determination (BID) meeting. (P-9) Student wanted to attend Springfield, which DCF supported. (Bowler)
16. Mr. Welch attends weekly meetings with DCF and facilitates Student of Concern (SOC) meetings. (Welch, P-14) Although Mr. Welch could not identify the specific date or who from DCF was present, he recalls that during one of these meetings with DCF Student was discussed.[7] (Welch, P-14)
17. On November 5, 2025, GAL rejected the South Hadley IEP in full but consented to the substantially separate classroom placement. (McCarthy, S-2)
18. On November 5, 2025, Mr. Welch provided GAL and DCF with a link for Student’s enrollment, indicating he would be “in touch once [the enrollment packet was] submitted.” (Welch, P-10)
19. The enrollment information provided by DCF did not include any information related to Student’s severe trauma history. (McCarthy, S-19) According to Mr. Welch and Dr. McCarthy, DCF also had an opportunity to share concerns regarding students in its care during Mr. Welch’s standing weekly meeting with DCF. (McCarthy)
20. Upon Student’s enrollment in Springfield, Ms. Pope reviewed the South Hadley IEP, as she does for each high school student who enters the District. Based on the initial paperwork she reviewed, it appeared that Student’s initial IEP had been rejected, and the placement page had included no checked options. As such, Ms. Pope reached out to South Hadley to see if they had any additional information. She was told TTC was a small program that included a special educator and a paraprofessional. South Hadley also faxed over the new placement page, which GAL had signed on November 5, 2025, accepting the substantially separate placement. (Pope, McCarthy)
21. Ms. Bowler was not aware of the type of program proposed on Student’s placement page from South Hadley. She also did not know what information was included in the DCF enrollment packet for Springfield. (Bowler)
22. Student participated in a Transition Assessment in November 2025.[8] Areas of concern included social skills, interpersonal relationships, emotional regulation, goal setting, maintaining appropriate behavior in social settings, and demonstrating workplace skills. Student minimized or did not recognize areas where he may need improvement, particularly regarding work habits, responsibility, and social-emotional functioning. Evaluators emphasized the importance of continuing to develop Student’s "soft skills," including communication, teamwork, emotional regulation, time management, and interpersonal skills. Recommendations included: continuing his academic program at South Hadley High School; coursework focused on self-determination, self-awareness, and social skills; career exploration through person-centered planning; connection with the Massachusetts Rehabilitation Commission for adult transition services; exploration of volunteer and employment opportunities; use of career planning tools; and possible future supports through disability services if he attends college or trade school. (S-22)
23. On November 5, 2025, Student was enrolled in the District. Springfield informed GAL that the “SPS Student of Concern (SOC) team will be reviewing [Student] on [November 10, 2025] … and [he would be] assigned” a school location on that date. (P-9, P-10, P-11, S-14)
24. Springfield’s Student of Concern Alternative School Referral Process states the following:
“Springfield Middle School and Springfield [Alternative] High School are secondary alternative education options offered within Springfield Public Schools for students in grades six through twelve (6-12). Each school provides every student with a safe and nurturing learning environment to assist all students in reaching academic proficiency. All sites have specially trained staff, including onsite counselors and additional support staff who work effortlessly to meet student's individual needs and assist in developing positive, productive and confident children to young adults. The schools utilize Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) to manage safe learning environments. Each site uses a school wide behavior plan which allows students to track their daily success on point sheets and provides daily communication with their families. The schools provide academic, social, and emotional support to both general and special education students with a variety of needs. Students are referred to these alternative schools for the following reasons:
• Social Maladjustment
• Over-age repeaters with a volatile history and are under credited
• High Risk Students - fire setting, extreme violence, assault, sexual misconduct, attendance
In the following ways:
• Through the Student Assignment Services Center - Students who are new to the district may be placed in the alternative school if their previous school placement or IEP reflects a comparable placement and they meet the criteria outlined above.
• By the Student of Concern committee - The SOC committee meets weekly. If you believe you have a student who meets the criteria above, please thoroughly complete the packet and email to Jeff Welch
* Students are to remain at the sending school until an intake is complete and transportation is arranged.” (S-12, S-14)
25. Also on November 5, 2025, GAL emailed Mr. Welch, introducing herself as Student’s GAL and noting that the Student is “a DCF custody student and a victim of severe trauma and bullying.” In an attached letter titled “Demand for Immediate Enrollment and Disclosure of SOC Process”, GAL requested Student's immediate enrollment in Springfield Public Schools, asserting that Student was entitled to attend school in his district of residence and that his existing IEP could not delay enrollment or the provision of a FAPE. She asked the District to refrain from initiating a “System of Care”[9] referral without prior written notice and an opportunity for her participation, requested that Student be permitted to tour the school and meet staff before or upon enrollment, sought information regarding available placements at Roger L. Putnam Vocational Technical Academy (Putnam) or Springfield Renaissance School (Renaissance), or another appropriate school, and requested written confirmation regarding enrollment, school availability, the SOC process, and arrangements for a school tour. (P-10, S-14)
26. According to Ms. Bowler, because Student was a victim of severe physical violence, unexpected noises, unwanted touch, and certain conversations can trigger him. He is always in a state of “fight-or-flight” and needs a calm, predictable environment where he can learn without fear. (Bowler)
27. On November 6, 2025, Ms. Roy emailed Mr. Welch, copying Educational GAL Kelly LaRoe, and advised that GAL had questions about Student's placement and wished to tour the school before Student enrolled. (P-9)
28. On November 7, 2025, Mr. Welch informed the SOC Team that Student was a tenth-grade student in DCF custody transferring from South Hadley High School, who had recently been removed from his school after threatening to "shoot up the school," had an extensive disciplinary history, including prior suspensions, and had completed the enrollment process. Mr. Welch indicated that DCF was aware of and comfortable with Springfield's assignment process and noted that Student's Court-Appointed Guardian ad Litem, had contacted the District regarding Student's placement. (P-11)
29. The Springfield Student Assignment Policies Handbook (hereinafter, the Handbook), adopted by the School Committee in 2017, outlines the parameters and practices governing student assignments. In relevant part, the Handbook states that
“Springfield High, Balliet Middle, Liberty Preparatory High, Gateway to College HCC Campus & STCC Campus and Early College High schools are alternative schools that provide at-risk youth the opportunity to matriculate in accordance with the standards and curriculum frameworks established for all [Springfield] students. The programs provide a comprehensive array of services to support a student’s remediation of issues that cause school failure. Students who enroll [in Springfield] from an alternative placement will be assigned directly to an alternative program. Referrals for documented at-risk students currently enrolled in a ‘traditional’ [Springfield] program must be submitted by a student’s current school to the appropriate alternative program administrator for placement consideration.” (Welch, S-10)
30. The Handbook further states, in relevant part, that students “entering or returning to Springfield with a felony charge or conviction will be referred to the appropriate Student Assignment Services Administrator ([SOC] Assignments). A record of information voluntarily disclosed by the student, parent/guardian, and/or agency will be referred to the SOC team for appropriate placement.” Foster care students are assigned to schools in the same manner and in accordance with the same process used for all students (with the exception of immediate enrollment). According to Mr. Welch, the Handbook is guidance and does not preclude referring a student to the SOC Team, even in the absence of a charge or conviction, as in Student's case. (Welch, Singer, S-10, S-13)
31. Mr. Welch testified that there are many reasons why a student would be referred to an alternative school, including being under-credited or over-age. In addition, behavioral or attendance issues could be grounds for a referral. Upon enrollment, prior school records (including special education records, if appropriate) are reviewed, and Mr. Welch is informed whether the SOC Team should convene. The SOC Team for high school students includes Linda Singer, Principal of Springfield High School, Ms. Pope, and other administrators, including special education administrators. Once the SOC Team convenes and decides on a specific school assignment, Mr. Welch emails his SAS team, and the student is assigned a school. (Welch)
32. Mr. Welch referred Student to the SOC Team based on a review of his disciplinary records from South Hadley. He believes the referral was proper. (Welch)
33. Ms. Singer participated in Student’s SOC Team. She explained that the SOC referral process is not exclusive for students with convictions, and Student’s referral to the SOC Team was appropriate, given his records from South Hadley. (Singer, S-10)
34. According to Mr. Welch, the SOC process is not “based on IEPs,” and “IEP details are not discussed.” (Welch)
35. Although Dr. McCarthy does not currently participate in the SOC process, she did so previously when serving as a Middle School Special Education Supervisor. Special Education Supervisors participate in the SOC process to ensure that no IEP-related decisions are made at the SOC meeting and to ensure that IEPs are considered in the assignment process. (McCarthy)
36. On November 10, 2025, the SOC Team met to discuss Student and determine his school assignment.[10] (P-11, P-12, P-13, P-14) GAL was not invited despite her request to participate in the meeting. According to both Dr. McCarthy and Mr. Welch, it is not Springfield’s practice to invite parents, GALs, or DCF to SOC meetings. It is an internal meeting only. Mr. Welch also explained that DCF is familiar with the District’s assignment policy. (Welch)
37. Mr. Welch recalls that GAL’s November 5, 2025 email of concerns and request for consideration of assignment to Putnam or Renaissance was forwarded to the SOC Team prior to the meeting. Putnam required a “score” for entrance, but Mr. Welch could not remember whether Renaissance was discussed. Ms. Pope did not believe the substantially separate programs at Putnam and Renaissance were appropriate for Student. The only substantially separate program at Putnam is for students aged 18 to 22, and the substantially separate programs at Renaissance are for students with developmental delays and medical conditions. Neither was comparable (nor could be made comparable) to the program in which Student participated at South Hadley. (Welch, Pope)
38. Student was assigned to Springfield High School with no special education transportation. According to both Ms. Pope and Dr. McCarthy a placement is a type of program (i.e., a substantially separate classroom), whereas an assignment is a location (i.e., a specific building). The SOC process deals with assignments. (Pope, McCarthy) According to Dr. McCarthy, an IEP meeting was scheduled following the SOC meeting to discuss Student's needs and to make sure that his needs were being met at his assigned school. (Welch, McCarthy, P-12, P-13, P-14, S-10)
39. On November 10, 2025, Springfield informed the GAL that Student had been assigned to Springfield High School. Springfield High School is a therapeutic school with therapeutic and behavior supports. The GAL objected, asserting that Student had attended a “regular high school" previously, the placement was overly restrictive, constituted a denial of FAPE, should have been determined by the IEP Team rather than unilaterally through the SOC process, and that Student would not attend the assigned school. Mr. Welch subsequently inquired about transportation because regular education and special education transportation are coded differently in the District's system. (P-13)
40. Student’s IEP was not modified or amended during the SOC meeting. (Welch) According to Ms. Pope and Dr. McCarthy, Ms. Pope did not “determine” Student's transportation; rather, she ensured that the provisions of Student’s IEP regarding transportation were implemented. (McCarthy, Pope) As Student’s South Hadley IEP did not include specialized transportation[11], it was not provided for him as part of his school assignment. Ms. Pope did not reach out to South Hadley to clarify why specialized transportation had not been proposed. (Pope)
41. According to Mr. Welch, appropriateness of a specific school assignment is monitored through communications with the school. A reverse SOC process is possible if an alternative school recommends that a student attend a regular high school. There is no appeal process for an SOC determination. The foster care dispute resolution process appeals a BID determination, not an SOC decision. (Welch)
42. Springfield scheduled an IEP Team meeting for Student for November 19, 2025. The purpose of the meeting was to review rejected portions of the IEP. This meeting was also an opportunity to consult with GAL and DCF regarding the program's comparability. (McCarthy, Pope, P-6, S-18)
43. Approximately ninety students attend Springfield High School. Principal Singer explained that the majority of students attending Springfield High School are not on IEPs, although many have trauma backgrounds. Moreover, not all students enter Springfield High School through the SOC process, as some parents choose a smaller alternative program for their children. (Singer)
44. According to Principal Singer, Springfield High School is a therapeutic school with therapeutic and behavior supports, including a social skills group (from which Student could benefit, but for which GAL refused to provide consent, as discussed infra). (Singer)
45. Springfield High School offers therapeutic supports. There are small groups in all classes; special education teachers push in and pull out of classes. Counseling is programmatic and is available to students at all times. (Phillips) Springfield High School is also considered to offer trauma-informed services. (Singer, Pope)
46. According to Principal Singer, Student’s last accepted placement at South Hadley was a substantially separate classroom, where Student had to “go between two classrooms.” Student was assigned to a substantially separate classroom at Springfield High School, although there is only one classroom in the substantially separate classroom program. This substantially separate classroom consists of a small group of students, a special education teacher (although Student had a paraprofessional in his South Hadley substantially separate classroom, there is no paraprofessional in his current classroom due to the small number of students), and access to a counselor. At Springfield High School, Student spends 80% of his day in a substantially separate classroom. (Singer)
47. According to Ms. Pope and Dr. McCarthy, based on Ms. Pope’s discussion with South Hadley, Springfield High School was appropriate for Student because it is a smaller setting with a substantially separate program that can provide C-Grid academics and therapeutic supports, and is therefore comparable to Student’s South Hadley program. Dr. McCarthy further explained that Student’s behaviors at South Hadley raised concerns regarding the need for behavioral and therapeutic supports, and Student’s evaluation at South Hadley was related to concerns regarding an emotional impairment. (Pope, McCarthy)
48. Kelli Phillips is the Evaluation Team Leader at Springfield High School. To her knowledge, Student was offered the same services at Springfield High School as he had at South Hadley. (Phillips)
49. GAL did not attend the November 19, 2025 Team meeting. The Team waited for GAL for 20 minutes, after which the meeting ended without any decisions. (Pope)
50. On November 19, 2025, the GAL requested a copy of the SOC materials from Ms. Pope, asserting that she and DCF had been excluded from the process and alleging that the SOC process unlawfully changed Student's placement, violated his IEP, and resulted in an impermissibly segregated placement. She stated that she would not “attend or consider anything without all the information[.]” (P-6, S-11) Ms. Pope replied to inform GAL she would receive a meeting invitation for a Team meeting for December 2, 2025. (P-6)
51. On November 19, 2025, Springfield issued a meeting invitation for December 2, 2025, with the purpose of “IEP Review - To Discuss Rejected Portions of IEP, Second Attempt.” (Pope, P-9, S-18)[12]
52. On December 1, 2025, Ms. Pope invited Ms. Bowler to attend Student's December 2 Team meeting, explaining that the November 19 meeting had not occurred because neither the GAL nor Student's former special education liaison attended. She noted that Student had been assigned to Springfield High School but had not attended, had accrued 13 absences, that the group home had directed educational matters to the GAL, who had not responded to the District's outreach and had filed a BSEA hearing request, and that the District sought to convene the Team because no signed IEP was in effect following Student's enrollment. She also requested DCF representation at the meeting because Student was in DCF custody. Ms. Bowler responded that “DCF [cannot] make educational decisions for [Student] so his educational GAL would need to be present for this meeting.” (Bowler, P-2, P-7) Ms. Pope reached out to DCF because Student was in DCF custody and had yet to attend school. She wanted DCF to be “at the table” as a member of Student’s Team to discuss rejected portions of his IEP. Ms. Bowler believes DCF should be invited to Team meetings but is often excluded. Dr. McCarthy understood that Ms. Pope reached out to the DCF Supervisor because the District was not getting a response from the DCF Social Worker. (Pope, Bowler, McCarthy)
53. On December 1, 2025, GAL sent the following email to Ms. Pope:[13]
“I'm the GAL- appointed by the court, backed by federal law. You can twist your story for DCF, but the emails expose every flaw. You violated IDEA, tried to gatekeep his education, but now we're in the hearing - and I'm bringing the entire nation. IDEA, 504, ADA- I walk with the statutes when I speak. Try me if you want-but I don't lose cases. I win them for the kids every single week. You can play with other GALs - but me? I don't fold, I don't break, and I don't scare.
You don't get to play the victim while you hide the SOC file. If you want а meeting tomorrow?
Then stop lying for а while."
… I am writing to address your December 1st email to DCF, which contained multiple factual misrepresentations, omissions, and statements that you knew or should have known were untrue at the time you wrote them.
Your conduct in this situation has crossed from administrative disorganization into something far more serious: creating а false record, manipulating а state agency, and attempting to frame the educational decision-maker to cover the district's own procedural violations.
Let me be as clear as possible:
You do not get to create а false narrative about me while actively concealing your own actions.
1. You did NOT disclose or provide the SOC report.
You told DCF you "tried" to engage me.
That is а provable falsehood.
I emailed you - in writing - twice on November 19 requesting the SOC documentation that you participated in creating.
You ignored both emails.
You did not provide the SOC report.
You did not even acknowledge the request.
You have still not provided it to this day.
If you cannot produce it, I will subpoena it.
If it does not exist, that is another issue entirely.
2. You falsely claimed I "did not attend" а meeting you scheduled without the required IDEA information.
You neglected to mention that:
You refused to disclose the SOC meeting participants
You refused to send the SOC report
You refused to identify the placement rationale
You refused to provide prior written notice
You ignored repeated written requests
You attempted to hold а meeting after predetermining placement
You created the barrier - not me.
Your selective retelling to DCF is deeply unethical.
З. You told DCF that I "have not accepted outreach," while you refused to respond to mine.
I responded to every required communication.
You responded to none of mine.
The record shows:
November 5 - I requested enrollment + transparency
November 6 - I requested SOC participation + rationale
November 19 - I requested the SOC report twice
November 21 - I followed up again
You ignored me every time.
What you told DCF is not just misleading - it is the opposite of the truth.
4. You intentionally concealed the fact that the SOC process was misapplied.
The SOC process is for:
"Students entering or returning with а felony charge or conviction."
[Student] has neither.
You participated in а secret SOC meeting anyway.
You used а process not applicable to him.
You excluded both DCF and the GAL.
You predetermined placement.
You attempted to funnel him into а segregated school.
And then, instead of being transparent about this,
you misled DCF to make it look like I was the issue.
This is а textbook violation of IDEA and ESSA foster-care protections.
5. You attempted to manipulate DCF to justify an unlawful placement.
Your email to DCF was not an "update."
It was а calculated attempt to reshape the narrative around your actions:
You left out the original Commerce[14] placement.
You left out the secret SOC review.
You left out all ignored GAL requests.
You left out that DCF already confirmed the GAL is the sole decision maker.
You left out the district's failure to hold the Resolution Session.
The only way your story works is by erasing the truth.
That is not only unprofessional - it is unacceptable.
6. You do not get to play the victim while victimizing а child.
You have tried very hard to present yourself as the reasonable actor here.
But the record shows:
You participated in an exclusionary meeting
You hid the resulting documentation
You ignored the GAL
You ignored DCF's designated enrollment staff
You misrepresented [Student’s] status
You misrepresented my conduct
You attempted to sway DCF behind the scenes
That is not reasonable.
That is not transparent.
And it certainly is not ethical.
7. This behavior is beneath the standard expected of а Special Education Supervisor.
You do not have to like my advocacy.
You do not have to agree with my legal positions.
But you are not permitted to:
misrepresent procedural history
conceal required documentation
predetermine placement
exclude required participants
manipulate state agencies
create а false paper trail to protect the district
rewrite events that are already documented in writing
What you have done is exactly what IDEA was enacted to prevent.
8. Immediate Demands
I am formally requesting:
1. The complete SOC report
including names, notes, decisions, and data used.
2. The written rationale for the SOC invocation
given it violates your own policy.
3. The written rationale for the Commerce assignment, then reversal.
4. AII communications between SPED, Enrollment, and the SOC team related to [Student].
5. А corrective statement to DCF
accurately reflecting the record - not your invented version of it.
Until these items are produced,
there will be no meetings, no placement discussions, and no further tolerance for narrative-building at the expense of this child.
Closing
You are not being targeted.
You are being held accountable.
Other GALs may accept this type of conduct.
I will not.
I suggest you begin responding to the actual written record rather than the version reconstructed for convenience.” (Pope, P-8)
54. Ms. Pope found GAL’s email hostile and threatening. (Pope)
55. On December 2, 2025, the Team reconvened to review rejected portions of the IEP. Although GAL attended the meeting, Student did not. Student had also still not attended school since his enrollment in the District on November 6. According to Ms. Pope, at the meeting, the District attempted to review the rejected portions of the IEP and determine GAL’s concerns regarding the IEP but was unsuccessful. GAL focused only on the SOC process, which Ms. Pope refused to address, as that was not the purpose of the meeting. According to Dr. McCarthy, the Team did not have an opportunity to discuss comparability to South Hadley programming because GAL was preoccupied with the SOC process. (Pope, McCarthy, S-18)
56. Principal Singer scheduled an intake meeting with Student and GAL to get to know Student. A tour was offered, but GAL did not attend. (McCarthy, Singer)
57. In December 2025, Student participated in a Clinical and Psychoeducational Assessment with James Levine & Associates, P.C., which was funded by South Hadley and had been outstanding.[15] Results demonstrated strong cognitive and academic abilities despite significant adversity, including missing approximately two years of school, learning English as a second language, and experiencing extensive trauma. Student’s scores reflected very high visual-spatial skills, high average abstract verbal reasoning, and average fluid reasoning skills. His overall cognitive functioning was considered exceptional given his history. Academically, his achievement scores were generally average, with math ranging from average to low average. Although formal testing showed average working memory and high-average processing speed, teachers reported significant executive functioning difficulties, which were observed during testing. The evaluator noted that trauma, emotional dysregulation, personality factors, and attention-seeking behaviors likely contribute to these difficulties.
Student was diagnosed with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Other Specified Trauma- and Stressor-Related Disorder. The report discussed Student’s behavioral issues, including defiance, perseveration, impulsivity, and emotional escalation. The evaluator also recommended monitoring Student for oppositional or conduct disorders. The evaluator identified significant trauma-related concerns, including emotional dysregulation, prior suicidal and homicidal ideation, anxiety, depression, somatization, and maladaptive personality traits. Student minimized or denied many concerns, but the evaluation noted patterns of grandiosity, defensiveness, distorted perceptions of events, and interpersonal difficulties, as well as emerging personality-related traits, such as manipulative, narcissistic, or antisocial tendencies, likely connected to trauma and disrupted relationships. No personality disorder diagnosis was made, however, because of Student’s age.
Recommendations emphasized a trauma-informed, strength-based, collaborative approach; individual therapy and continued medication management; consistent, calm behavioral expectations and avoidance of power struggles; emotional regulation and anger-management interventions; direct instruction in social boundaries and interpersonal skills; ongoing monitoring for worsening emotional, behavioral, or sexualized behaviors; continued executive functioning and attention supports at school, including preferential seating, movement breaks, chunking assignments, repeated instructions, sensory supports, and organizational strategies such as planners and reminders. (S-21)
58. On December 16, 2025, GAL indicated disagreement with “the Alt school created documents and policies.” She indicated that Student
“was not placed legally here, I do not agree to this, and until the issue is resolved, this is not agreed to. He will not be forced to participate…. [Student] is attending under duress due to the process. I will not agree to any of this … the alternative segregated school.” (S-19)
GAL also refused to consent to Student's participation in social skills group. (S-19)
59. Student’s first day attending Springfield High School was December 18, 2025. Despite his attendance, GAL continued to press for information regarding the SOC process. (McCarthy)
60. Ms. Bowler did not file a 51A when Student did not attend school from November 10 to December 18, because GAL was “trying to work out if [Springfield High School] [was] an appropriate placement” and had requested tutoring[16]. (Bowler)
61. On Student’s first day at Springfield High School, he heard a lot of comments about “girls getting pounded,” and witnessed a girl fight in the cafeteria. Some students also made “gangster” representations towards Student, and there were discussions of an after-school altercation. As a result, Student called the Director of his residential program and asked to be picked up. (Student)
62. Principal Singer disputed that the altercation described by Student was a fight. The girls were yelling, but were separated by staff, a situation that “could happen anywhere.” Principal Singer attempted to investigate the “gangster” comments, but as Student was unable to provide her with any information regarding the matter, the investigation yielded no results. She did not follow up with a formal letter regarding her attempt to investigate the matter. (Singer) Dr. McCarthy similarly believed the incident was not a fight, and it was de-escalated quickly. Although there were no written findings of the investigation, the “loop was closed” when Principal Singer informed GAL of the outcome. Dr. McCarthy proposed that Principal Singer meet with Student to develop a plan to make him feel safe. (McCarthy)
63. According to Principal Singer, Ms. Phillips, and Dr. McCarthy, at Springfield High School, all students have the option to attend a therapeutic lunch with counselors or eat lunch in the cafeteria. At first, Student chose to participate in therapeutic lunch, but now he chooses to go to the cafeteria. (Singer, Phillips, McCarthy, S-19)
64. Student participates in English Language Arts, Science, History, and Study Skills in the special education classroom (with 3 to 4 other students, depending on the day), and in Gym and Algebra with the general education population. According to Principal Singer, Student is accessing grade-level curriculum. (Singer, S-25)
65. Springfield High School has an after-school club for which transportation is provided. Students who attend Springfield High School can participate in sports at any Springfield public high school. According to Principal Singer, students at Springfield High School have participated in football and volleyball. (Singer)
66. Student has informed Ms. Bowler that he was afraid at school. Although she has not toured or observed Springfield High School or spoken to Student’s teachers, Ms. Bowler concluded that the program was unsafe and inappropriate, because Student has “witnessed things” there that have “triggered his trauma.” DCF has had to “run and grab him and take him out of there.” (Bowler)
67. According to Principal Singer, Student has not indicated “what was unsafe” at Springfield High School. (Singer) Both Principal Singer and Dr. McCarthy believe that there is a discrepancy between what Student reports at school and what Student reports outside of school (and his testimony at the Hearing). (Singer, McCarthy) Despite Student’s assertion that he was in constant fear at Springfield High School, his emotional functioning has improved during his time there: he now opts for lunch in the cafeteria, has a group of friends, and even chose to go to the prom outside of school hours and outside of the substantially separate setting. Since starting in December, Student’s attendance has been excellent, and he has built rapport with the staff. (McCarthy) Student has not had any disciplinary referrals while at Springfield. (Singer)
68. Dr. McCarthy opined that Springfield complied with its procedural obligations to Student as a transfer student and that Student receives a FAPE at Springfield High School “without a doubt.”(McCarthy) Similarly, Ms. Phillips opined that, aside from whether Student was happy at or liked Springfield High School, he makes progress there and receives an appropriate education. (Phillips)
69. According to the special education teacher in Student’s substantially separate classroom, Student is doing very well at Springfield High School both academically and socially. He has strong relationships with peers and staff, is helpful in class, and has earned an Academic Excellence Award in Environmental Science. His attendance is very good, and he has become more independent, no longer needing prompts to attend classes like Gym and Algebra. Student excels in reading, science, and history, though he continues to need support with writing and math. He benefits from reminders to stay on task and complete work, typically needing a few prompts per class period. Student has shown notable growth in confidence and social engagement. His special education teacher was uncertain as to how Student would perform in a less-supported setting. (Singer, S-25)
70. Student agrees he has made progress at Springfield High School but explained that he has not had a “good time” there, because “most of the kids are crazy.” He mostly stays in the substantially separate classroom because he is afraid of the other students. He witnesses a lot of violence and does not feel safe there. (Student)
71. According to Dr. McCarthy, when a student reports being in a persistent state of fear, a Team meeting should convene to discuss the concerns and “unpack the fear.” However, when staff met with Student, he did not report being afraid. Student has also not attended any Team meetings to report on his experience. She disagreed that this has been an issue for Student. She also disagreed that Springfield High School is a volatile environment, but opined that even if it was, Student nevertheless made academic progress and received an appropriate education. (McCarthy)
72. In January 2026, Student reported that the bus failed to show up on several occasions. Student’s group home staff inquired whether he could get door-to-door transportation because the “pickup site [was] а 10-minute walk[17] from the program [and the group home staff felt] that [it was] а bit too far for [Student] ….” Principal Singer responded to the group home that the “assignment of а minibus [came] from the IEP.” (Student, P-3, P-4) With respect to the issue of specialized transportation, Ms. Pope was aware of the communications regarding busing; familiar with busses often being late in January due to the snow; aware that parents ask for door-to-door transportation “all the time”; believes that door-to-door transportation was a highly restrictive service; had not been asked to convene a Team meeting to review transportation; and believed specialized transportation would be discussed at the March 2026 IEP Team meeting. (Pope)
73. On February 6, 2026, Student’s South Hadley IEP expired. (Pope)
74. On March 13, 2026, the District convened an IEP Team meeting. Although GAL attended, neither Student nor Ms. Guyette did. The Team reviewed the Clinical and Psychoeducational Assessment report. The District proposed an IEP dated 3/13/26 to 3/12/27 (March 2026 IEP) with goals in the areas of Mathematics, Transition/Vocational, Executive Functioning, and Behavioral/Social/Emotional and the following services: Grid A: Academic Support (Special Education Teacher/General Education Classroom, 1 session/5-day cycle of 15 min); Grid B: English Language Arts (General Education Teacher, 5 sessions/5-day cycle of 50 min) and Math (General Education Teacher, 5 sessions/5-day cycle of 50 min); Grid C: Counseling (Counselor, 1 session/5-day cycle of 30 min), Social/Emotional/Behavioral Support (Special Education Teacher, 5 sessions/5-day cycle of 120 min); English Language Arts (Special Education Teacher, 5 sessions/5-day cycle of 50 min); and Math (Special Education Teacher, 5 sessions/5-day cycle of 50 min). A partial inclusion placement was proposed in a SEBS program. The specific location was noted as “Student Support at Assigned High School: 03/13/2026 - 03/12/2027.” Specialized transportation was not proposed in the March 2026 IEP. However, it was discussed at the meeting, and in response to a request for specialized transportation, Ms. Pope indicated that Student “should start taking the yellow bus, and we can collect data on his access to that form of transportation before determining that he needs door-to-door transportation.” (Pope, McCarthy, P-3, S-23, S-26)
75. According to Ms. Pope, GAL participated in the March 13 Team meeting, contributed to the discussion, and provided significant input into the development of Student’s social-emotional goals. (Pope)
76. SEBS programs at the high school level are inclusion-based and feature small groups, high staff-to-student ratios, behavioral and clinical support, a special education teacher, paraprofessionals, inclusion opportunities, and trauma-informed strategies. (Pope, McCarthy) Springfield High School does not have a SEBS program. (Phillips)
77. At Springfield, the IEP Team determines the type of placement, but the specific school location assignment is made by the Special Education Supervisor for the relevant grade level. Student was assigned to the SEBS program at Commerce High School. (McCarthy, S-26, S-28)
78. On May 6, 2026, GAL signed the March 2026 IEP. Despite checking the box for “I accept this IEP as developed”, GAL provided a letter indicating that she partially accepted and partially rejected the proposed March 2026 IEP. Specifically, she agreed that Student required therapeutic supports, counseling services, executive functioning supports, emotional regulation supports, academic accommodations, and partial inclusion programming with increased access to general education settings. GAL further agreed that Student was capable of accessing general education programming with appropriate supports and accommodations. GAL consented to the partial inclusion placement and requested that Student be immediately transitioned into an available in-district Springfield Public Schools program, including Central High School (Central). GAL rejected any proposal for assignment at Commerce High School. (McCarthy, S-26, S-28)
79. Springfield Public Schools controls and oversees all special education programs, including those in the Springfield Empowerment Zone (SEZ). The Springfield Empowerment Zone includes Commerce High School. Schools in the SEZ are low-performing and in need of focused/targeted support. All SEZ schools are part of the District.[18] In October 2016, Commerce High School was added as a Target School subject to SEZ governance and the terms of the Springfield Empowerment Zone Partnership Memorandum of Understanding. However, effective July 1, 2026, Commerce High School will no longer be subject to SEZ governance. (McCarthy)
80. Dr. McCarthy testified that GAL accepted the partial inclusion program and the therapeutic supports proposed by the Team, including that the therapeutic supports would be provided through the SEBS program. Dr. McCarthy testified that there is no Empowerment Zone SEBS program, as all SEBS programs are District-wide. This means that a student may transfer from one SEBS program to another. As such, Commerce High School is not an out-of-district placement. It is an in-District program, under the supervision of the Springfield Public Schools’ Superintendent [19] and any student whose IEP requires SEBS programming may be assigned there. Commerce’s SEBS program is comparable to other in-District SEBS programs, and Student’s C-Grid services could be implemented at Commerce High School. (McCarthy) In addition, according to Dr. McCarthy, Commerce High School is the smallest of Springfield’s high schools. It is composed of multiple small schools[20]. The SEBS program at Commerce comprises 2 classrooms, with 14 students[21] in each classroom, each classroom staffed with 2 special educators and 2 paraprofessionals, who also push into general education classrooms. A clinician and behavioral interventionist are “attached” to the program at Commerce. The Commerce SEBS program is very small physically, consisting of 2-3 hallways. (Pope, McCarthy, Phillips) According to Ms. Pope, peers at Commerce would be appropriate for Student, which must be considered since he will be included in general education classes. (Pope) GAL rejected the assignment at Commerce because it was within the Springfield Empowerment Zone. Ms. Bowler also rejected this due to her belief that students at Commerce have behavioral challenges. (McCarthy, Phillips, S-27)
81. Ms. Pope testified that Student’s voice should be considered in placement decisions. If Student felt unsafe at his current Springfield High School placement, it was a factor that should be considered. (Pope) Principal Singer opined that although Student may be doing very well at Springfield High School, since he does not want to attend there, his preference should be considered. She recommended a smaller environment for Student, as she does not believe he would do well in a large one. (Singer)
82. On March 16, 2026, GAL wrote to Ms. Pope,
“Please be informed if anything happens to that child from the group home to the bus stop or from the bus stop to the group home the district is liable[.] [A]s you know it is unsafe [and] you know his needs are great and require[] door-to-door and I will ensure that people are included in their professional capacity in individual capacity (sic).” (P-3)
83. Ms. Phillips acknowledged that Student could meet the criteria for specialized door-to-door transportation. (Phillips)
84. On April 23, 2026, the District sent a Team meeting invitation to Student and GAL for a meeting on May 15, 2026 to discuss Student’s vision and goals, review his progress, review the proposed Springfield IEP and placement, and discuss extended evaluation options to address therapeutic supports, including one at the SEBS program at Commerce. (The invitation noted that extended evaluations at “Central and Putnam [were] not options at this time.) As part of the extended evaluation proposal, the District offered to provide specialized transportation. (Student, S-24)
85. The IEP Team met on May 15, 2026, to review Student’s IEP and placement and to discuss assignment options. The Prior Written Notice for this meeting reflects that the District proposed assignment at Commerce High School because Student and GAL requested that he be moved from his current school assignment to a new school assignment. Additionally, the Team agreed that partial inclusion programming with social-emotional and behavioral supports would provide Student a FAPE, and that Commerce High School offers such social emotional behavioral therapeutic programming and partial inclusion. (S-27)
86. Also, according to the Prior Written Notice, at the May 2026 meeting the Team reviewed the SEBS programs requested by GAL. (S-27)
87. GAL based her request for assignment at Central on that school having sports, GAL liking the staff and administration there, and GAL considering Central to be a “safe school”. The Team considered and rejected the requested assignment to Central because Central’s SEBS program was currently at capacity, and, according to Dr. McCarthy, the SEBS program at Central was not an option for any student entering the District at this time. Moreover, all students who participated in that SEBS program were fully included. Over 2,000 students attend Central High School, which is Springfield’s largest high school. (McCarthy)
GAL’s reason for requesting assignment at Putnam was that Student was hardworking and wanted an opportunity to do well. The Team considered and rejected the requested assignment at Putnam because Student has not expressed interest in a Career Technical Education Program.
The Team rejected assigning Student to the SEBS program at High School of Science and Technology due to that school having over 1000 students, which GAL rejected, citing it as too large and with a “bad reputation.” Ms. Bowler rejected this option for the same reason. (S-27)
88. The District offered GAL a tour of Commerce; however, GAL requested that the tour occur immediately, a request which Springfield denied. (McCarthy, Phillips, S-27)
89. Ms. Phillips believed that all GAL’s concerns were addressed at the May 15, 2026 Team meeting. (Phillips)
90. Ms. Pope was not present at the May 15, 2026 Team meeting, but she subsequently consulted with the Team. She agrees that the SEBS program at Commerce “matched” the recommendations made by the March Team and that all grid services could be implemented by the program. (S-26, Pope)
91. Ms. Bowler has not reviewed the psychological report as it has not been provided to her. She attended the May 15, 2026 Team meeting and disagrees that the District considered DCF’s and GAL’s concerns. Instead, according to Ms. Bowler, the District presented Commerce as an “all or nothing” school assignment and disregarded the safety concerns raised by GAL and DCF. Ms. Bowler opined that Central, with which she is familiar, would provide Student with a calmer environment, which is “better” for his trauma, as he would not be triggered. She noted that Central is the school most students choose as their first choice, and the principal “runs a sturdy ship over there.” Ms. Bowler was not concerned about the impact that Central’s large size would have on Student, as she understands Commerce to be comprised of 4 buildings, thereby making it feel smaller than it actually is. She also opined that the fact that the other SEBS students at Central are all included full-time would work well for Student as he would receive extra support in his inclusion classes there. Moreover, Central offers ROTC, which Student is interested in, and ROTC was not confirmed to be available at Commerce. (Bowler)
92. According to Dr. McCarthy, the safety concerns raised by GAL and DCF relative to Commerce were based on their perceptions of other students in the program and were not related to Student. She noted that GAL referenced news stories about unsafe incidents at Commerce High School but provided non-factual information regarding them. DCF’s concerns were general (i.e., alleging that every student at Commerce “has problems” and that “when you put kids with problems together, you get more problems”). (McCarthy)
93. The percentage of licensed teachers at Commerce is substantially similar to that of the rest of the District (95.9% compared to 96.8%). Data from DESE shows “Limited or no progress toward targets” at Commerce. (S-15, S-16, S-17, S-18, S-19, McCarthy)
94. Dr. McCarthy is not aware of how many students at Springfield High School or at Commerce have felonies, and this was not a factor considered in Student’s assignment. (McCarthy)
95. Student has been offered a reassignment in response to his assertion of fear at Springfield High School. Student may begin attending Commerce at any time. He has not chosen to do so. (McCarthy)
96. Ms. Bowler believes this entire year has been a waste for Student. She questioned whether Student requires the SEBS program and opined that Springfield High School has not been appropriate. However, she also testified that it is GAL, not DCF, who makes educational decisions for Student. Ms. Bowler agreed that Student was successful at both South Hadley and at Springfield High School, which made her question the necessity of the supports he had been receiving at Springfield High School and those proposed for the SEBS program. In her opinion, Student has made the best of what he has been given; although Student has done “amazingly” at Springfield High School, his trauma has been used against him. Student has suffered harm at Springfield High School because “we have not lessened his [feelings of] fight or flight.” (Bowler, P-21)
97. Student recently attended the prom at Springfield High School and had fun. He has also received four awards, including the Most Improved Student award. Student has a small group of friends and finds his counselor helpful. (Student)
III. DISCUSSION:
A. Legal Standards
1. Free Appropriate Public Education in the Least Restrictive Environment
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" (FAPE).[22] To provide a student with a FAPE, a school district must follow identification, evaluation, program design, and implementation practices that ensure that each student with a disability receives an Individualized Education Program (IEP) that is: custom tailored to the student's unique learning needs; "reasonably calculated to confer a meaningful educational benefit"; and ensures access to and participation in the general education setting and curriculum as appropriate for that student so as "to enable the student to progress effectively in the content areas of the general curriculum.”[23] Under state and federal special education law, a school district has an obligation to provide the services that comprise FAPE in the "least restrictive environment" (LRE).[24] This means that to the maximum extent appropriate, a student must be educated with other students who do not have disabilities, and 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."[25] "The goal, then, is to find the least restrictive educational environment that will accommodate the child's legitimate needs."[26]
The IEP must be individually tailored for the student for whom it is created.[27] When developing the IEP, the Team must consider parental concerns; the student's strengths, disabilities, recent evaluations, and present level of achievement; the child’s academic, developmental, and functional needs; and the child’s potential for growth.[28] Evaluating an IEP requires viewing it as "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.”[29] At the same time, FAPE does not require a school district to provide special education and related services to maximize a student’s educational potential,[30] and appropriate progress will vary depending on the student.[31] An individual analysis of a student’s progress in his/her areas of need is key.[32] The educational services provided to a student, therefore, need not be "the only appropriate choice, or the choice of certain selected experts, or the child's parents' first choice, or even the best choice."[33]
i. Transportation
Pursuant to the IDEA, transportation constitutes a related service.[34] A related service is defined as a service “required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education.”[35] Specifically, transportation includes travel to and from school, between school locations, and within and around school buildings, as well as specialized equipment when deemed necessary.[36] Massachusetts law largely mirrors the IDEA’s provisions on transportation, with additional procedural specificity.[37] As provided by Massachusetts regulations, if the Team determines that a student requires transportation or specialized transportation, the Team must note this on the student’s IEP, including specific arrangements, whether the student needs help on or off the vehicle, in or out of the home, and in or out of school.[38] However, if specialized transportation is not required due to the student’s disability, the student will receive regular transportation in the same manner as students without disabilities.[39]
Districts should start with the presumption that a student with a disability will ride regular transportation with nondisabled peers as long as such transportation is appropriate to meet the child's educational needs.[40] The decision of whether to transport a child from the home or from a local bus stop must be made on an individual basis when developing the child's IEP.[41] When determining which type of transportation is appropriate, the Team must inquire if transportation is necessary for the student to benefit from special education.[42] In making such a determination, the Team should look to evaluative information such as functional behavioral assessments, home assessments, informal observations, and transportation use assessments.[43]
2. Procedural Violations
In addition to providing parents with substantive rights, the IDEA provides both students and parents with procedural rights.[44] Hence, “a [fact-finder’s] inquiry … is twofold. First, has the State complied with the procedures set forth in the Act? Second, is the [IEP] developed through the Act’s procedures reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits?”[45] Although a finding of procedural violations does not necessarily entitle appellants to relief, a procedural violation that results in substantive harm constitutes a denial of a FAPE for which relief may be granted.[46] A hearing officer may find that a child did not receive a FAPE if the procedural inadequacies impeded the child’s right to a FAPE; significantly impeded the parent’s opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provisions of a FAPE to the parent’s child; or caused a deprivation of educational benefits.[47]
i. Intrastate Transfers
The procedural requirements in the IDEA involving a student who moves from one school district to another school district within the same state, mandate that the receiving district must "provide such child with a free appropriate public education, including services comparable to those described in the previously held IEP, in consultation with the parents [or guardians] until such time as the local educational agency adopts the previously held IEP or develops, adopts, and implements a new IEP that is consistent with Federal and State law."[48] In Massachusetts, when an eligible student moves from one Massachusetts school district to another, "the last IEP written by the former school district and accepted by the parent shall be provided in a comparable setting without delay until a new IEP is developed and accepted."[49]
Although neither the IDEA nor state regulations define "comparable," the United States Department of Education's Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services ("OSERS") has interpreted "comparable" to mean "similar" or "equivalent" to the previous services.[50] One court found comparability where the receiving district, unable to replicate the unique educational environment of the old school district, offered a placement "that approximated the last agreed-upon IEP as closely as possible under the circumstances."[51]
3. Burden of Persuasion
In a due process proceeding, the burden of proof is on the moving party.[52] If the evidence is closely balanced, the moving party will not prevail.[53] In the instant case, as the moving party, GAL bears this burden.
B. Application of Legal Standards[54]:
It is not disputed that Student is a student with a disability who is entitled to special education services under state and federal law. The fundamental issues in dispute are set out under ISSUES IN DISPUTE, supra.
Based upon three days of oral testimony, the extensive exhibits introduced into evidence, thoughtful arguments of GAL and Counsel, and a review of the applicable law, I conclude as follows:
1. Springfield Failed To Consult With GAL When Providing A Comparable Setting For Student
But This Did Not Result in a Denial of a FAPE To Student.
The selection of a comparable setting pursuant to federal and state intrastate changes in residence does not implicate a Team process requiring parental participation. [55] While 603 C.M.R. 28.03(1)(c)(1) is silent as to a parent’s or guardian’s involvement in the provision of a “comparable setting,” 34 CFR § 300.323(e) requires, “consultation with the parents,” but does not require a convening of an IEP Team nor does it mandate that parents or guardians be part of the group of people making such a decision.[56] Rather, a parent or guardian who disagrees that the new setting is “comparable” may challenge the determination through the IDEA’s dispute resolution procedures, including by filing for a due process hearing.
GAL contends that she was improperly excluded from the discussions pertaining to Student’s school assignment upon his enrollment in Springfield. However, the method by which the District determined comparable placement is largely immaterial, as neither federal nor state regulations prescribe a specific process for determining comparable placement for intrastate transfers, besides the federal law’s requirement for consultation with parents (or guardians), provided that the placement meets the comparability requirement. Because GAL was not a required member of the group of people determining comparable placement, Springfield did not, as a matter of law, violate the IDEA by excluding her from the discussions to determine Student school assignment at the time of his enrollment, provided that the required “consultation” relative to comparability of programming occurred. In other words, contrary to GAL’s argument, no consultation was necessary regarding Student’s school assignment; she needed only to have been consulted regarding the comparability of the setting and services.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines“consultation” as a meeting or communication in which advice or information is exchanged.[57] Under this definition, while “consultation” connotes a deliberate, substantive discussion, a meeting is not necessarily required. Similarly, the phrase "in consultation with" requires meaningful communication and consideration of the educational decision-maker's perspective. The District contends it met its “consultation” duty by the SOC Team’s consideration of GAL’s November 5, 2025 emails, and by scheduling a Team meeting with GAL on November 19, 2025 to discuss the rejected services from the South Hadley IEP. However, while I agree the SOC Team considered GAL’s email communications, there was no opportunity at that time to “exchange” information with GAL as she was not part of that discussion. Moreover, the November 19, 2025 Team meeting was proposed only after Student’s assignment. GAL had no legal ability to veto the school assignment made by Springfield, and Springfield retained responsibility for determining how to provide comparable services. However, prior to the District determining what that program consisted of and where it could be implemented, she should have been, but was not, provided with an opportunity to communicate her understanding of Student’s program to Springfield (this, especially in light of her rejection of all services in the South Hadley IEP).
In its Closing Argument, the District argued that
“Massachusetts intends to set a higher floor of protection, intentionally imposing both temporal and substantive obligations, upon a school district. Therefore, under BSEA jurisprudence, the hearing officer must apply the more protective Massachusetts procedural standard.
As for application to the facts at bar, the Massachusetts regulation imposes no obligation on the Springfield Public Schools to consult with the Education GAL before implementing the accepted IEP. Rather, as noted above, infra, the compliance is rooted in immediate compliance with providing a ‘comparable setting.’ As such, Springfield complied with its sole regulatory obligation: to implement the last accepted IEP in a comparable setting, and to do so without delay.”[58]
Springfield's argument here is unpersuasive. While Massachusetts regulations governing transfers to a new district are designed to ensure continuity of services by requiring prompt implementation of the student's most recently accepted IEP in a comparable setting, they do not eliminate the District's obligation to consult with the student's educational decision-maker. Here, the District's duty to provide immediate comparable services did not excuse the omission of consultation with GAL before deciding what the program entailed and where it could appropriately be delivered.
Nor is the District’s reliance in its Closing Arguments on R.S. v. Bd. of Directors of Woods Charter Sch. Co., No. 1:16-CV-119, 2019 WL 1025930 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 4, 2019), aff'd sub nom. R.S. by & through Soltes v. Bd. of Directors of Woods Charter Sch. Co., 806 F. App'x 229 (4th Cir. 2020) and Ruby v. Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 122 F.Supp.3d 1288 (2015) helpful to its assertion that it engaged in appropriate consultation. In R.S., the Court agreed that the
“record of exhibits [was] replete with instances of consultation between WCS and R.S.’s parents, including an early meeting between the parents, Smiley, and Principal Bryan. The fact that Smiley also met separately with some of R.S.’s teachers ‘to discuss comparable services’ on September 13, 2013, does not show otherwise; the requirement that the school consult with the parents in the provision of comparable services is not a blanket prohibition on intra-staff meetings discussing comparable services.”[59]
In contrast, there was no “early meeting” with GAL in the instant matter. Rather, the first meeting offered to GAL (i.e., the November 19, 2025 Team meeting) was offered after the District had decided Student’s comparable setting was Springfield High School. Ruby is similarly distinguishable, as there, the Court relied on instances of communication between parent and the district in upholding the district’s position,[60] whereas here, Springfield cannot point to any instances of communication between the District and GAL prior to Springfield’s determination that Student’s comparable setting was Springfield High School. Springfield’s first communication with GAL was the email it sent on November 10, 2025, informing GAL of Student’s assignment to Springfield High School. Its next communication was the Team meeting invitation it sent for the November 19, 2025 Team meeting, which I have addressed above. Neither communication involved consultation. As such, unlike Ruby, in the instant matter GAL was not dissatisfied “with the product of her consultation” with Springfield; rather, her dispute involves its absence altogether.
Accordingly, I find that the GAL has met her burden on this claim.
Having determined that the District violated the IDEA’s consultation requirement when it determined Student’s comparable setting, I consider what, if any, remedy is warranted for this violation. As noted, supra, not every procedural inadequacy results in a denial of a FAPE. Here, while the District did not engage in the requisite consultation with the GAL, the record reflects, as discussed infra, that Student’s program at Springfield High School was substantively comparable to his prior IEP services.
The record is devoid of any evidence that the lack of consultation impeded Student’s right to a FAPE, resulted in a loss of educational benefit, or otherwise altered the nature or delivery of services to Student. As discussed below, Springfield High School was able to provide Student with the substantially separate classroom that GAL accepted that was comparable to what he had been provided with at South Hadley. Nor did Student’s placement at Springfield High School result in any loss of educational benefit to him. Despite his testimony that he was afraid to attend Springfield High School, Student has, by all accounts, including DCF’s, done an “amazing” job there, has become an active participant in the school life, even attending the prom, and has made effective progress there. Finally, as discussed above, since GAL was not a required participant in the comparability decision-making process (but was only entitled to be consulted), she did not have any meaningful participation rights that were impacted by the assignment of Student to Springfield High School. Accordingly, although the District committed a procedural violation, this violation did not amount to a denial of FAPE to Student.
Having found that the District committed a procedural violation but that this violation did not deny Student a FAPE, compensatory relief is not warranted.
2. Student’s Program At Springfield High School Was Comparable To Student’s Last Accepted
Placement, Including With Respect to Transportation.
GAL argues that the services and supports provided at Springfield High School are not comparable to those of Student’s last accepted placement; that Springfield High School is a more restrictive placement than South Hadley High School, as it is an alternative high school; and that Springfield failed to provide Student with necessary specialized transportation to Springfield High School.
The record reflects that despite GAL’s rejection of all discrete related services and accommodations proposed in the South Hadley IEP, the substantially separate classroom accepted by GAL on November 5, 2025 inherently included specially designed instruction, specialized staffing, modified curriculum, and environmental and behavioral supports, all of which were components of the “comparable” program to which Student was entitled.
Student’s classroom at Springfield High School is comparable to the TTC classroom at South Hadley. Ittoois a small educational setting that provides a supportive therapeutic learning environment with special educators and counselors, as well as additional support staff who work to meet students’ individual needs. TTC serves students whose primary needs are social, emotional, and/or behavioral, and whose profiles require a smaller, highly structured therapeutic setting for all or part of the school day. The program provides a high staff-to-student ratio and is designed to teach students appropriate social and coping skills for emotional regulation, while supporting their gradual transition to partial or full inclusion in general education classes.
I further find unpersuasive GAL’s argument that Springfield High School is a more restrictive placement than the TTC classroom because the TTC classroom was located in a traditional high school in South Hadley, but Springfield High School is an alternative high school. According to DESE’s Alternative Education Options Guidance To Create, Support, And/Or Improve Alternative Education Options For Students At-Risk Of Not Completing High School,
“Alternative education options are not special education placements; they are general education settings. They are not designed solely for students with IEPs and should not be confused with placements designed specifically for students with IEPs, such as substantially separate placements, approved public day programs, collaborative programs, and/or approved private special education schools. However, because alternative education programs are designed to respond to the needs of all students, to include both academic learning and social skills development, and to build on each student’s individual strengths and abilities, they may be responsive to the needs of students with IEPs.”
Principal Singer was persuasive that the majority of students at Springfield High School are not eligible for special education. Moreover, she testified that Student could have accessed sports and clubs while at Springfield High School. Most importantly, provided that Student’s IEP could be implemented at Springfield High School, the assignment of Student to an alternative high school was a general education decision within Springfield's discretion. Here, Student’s IEP was not “developed, amended, or revised solely for the purpose of fitting a student into an alternative education program.”[61] The overwhelming evidence supports Springfield’s argument that Springfield High School could (and did) deliver the specialized staffing, modified curriculum, and environmental and behavioral supports that were provided by the substantially separate TTC classroom at South Hadley. Moreover, despite its classification as an “alternative high school,” Student was able to interact with non-disabled peers similar to South Hadley, as the majority of students at Springfield High School are not on IEPs.[62]
Finally, GAL’s argument that Springfield failed to provide comparable services due to not offering Student specialized transportation also fails. The South Hadley IEP did not provide for specialized or door-to-door transportation as a necessary related service. Consequently, when Student enrolled, Springfield was under no legal obligation to provide specialized transportation as a comparable service. Although the group home and GAL requested a minibus, they did so for reasons unrelated to Student’s disability. At no time did GAL request to reconvene the Team to address transportation due to Student’s disability. Further, the District did not have any data to indicate that Student required specialized transportation for reasons related to his disability.[63] As Springfield’s obligation upon Student’s enrollment was only to provide a comparable program, it had no requirement to provide Student with door-to-door transportation.
Therefore, GAL has failed to meet her burden on this claim.
3. Student Received A FAPE Between December 18, 2025 and March 12, 2026.[64]
Student began attending Springfield High School on December 18, 2025. (Springfield did not propose another placement for Student until March 12, 2026, when Springfield proposed the March 2026 IEP.) The objective evidence demonstrates that Student received significant educational benefits during this time. He performed well in his academic classes and even earned an Academic Excellence award in Environmental Science. He had no disciplinary referrals during his time at Springfield High School. In addition, school staff observed positive social growth. He required minimal prompts to transition to his inclusion classes (algebra and gym), formed a small peer group, chose to transition from eating in the therapeutic counseling room to eating in the general cafeteria, and voluntarily attended the school prom.[65] Even Student acknowledged making progress at Springfield High School.
GAL and DCF argue that Student’s fear for his safety at Springfield High School prevented him from receiving a FAPE during this timeframe. Pursuant to M.G.L ch. 69, § 1P, schools have the affirmative obligation to create “safe and supportive” school environments for all students, regardless of eligibility for special education, that foster inclusion and promote students’ academic success, well-being, and behavioral health. Because the statute applies to all school environments, and not specifically to special education settings, an allegation that a school environment is not safe, standing alone, does not establish a claim under the IDEA.[66] However, under the broad language of 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6) due process complaints can be pursued for any matter relating to a violation of FAPE, therefore to the extent that a general safety concern is tied to an alleged FAPE violation, it may fall under the BSEA's jurisdiction Thus, claims that a district did not investigate or listen to a disabled student’s or parents’ concerns regarding fear and safety have been found to be actionable under IDEA.[67] However, in Georgetown Public Schools, BSEA # 11-0291 (2010), Hearing Officer William Crane addressed a denial of a FAPE claim on the grounds that the school failed to provide a student with a safe environment. In concluding there was no FAPE violation, he explained that although “Parents [were] correct that as part of its obligation to provide Student with FAPE, Georgetown had an obligation to provide a safe environment within which Student may learn[, the] mere possibility of injury [did] not make the school unsafe[, and there was] nothing in the record to indicate that Georgetown should have done something more than it was already doing in order to create a safe educational environment for Student." Here, despite Ms. Bowler’s testimony that the environment at Springfield High School (which Student described as scary to him) could be triggering for a student with Student’s complicated trauma background, there is no evidence in the record that the environment there was, in fact, so triggering to Student or that Springfield failed to appropriately respond to Student’s fears and concerns. In other words, just as in Georgetown,DCF’s argument in the instant matter is grounded in speculation and generalizations about Student’s profile and its possible manifestations, rather than in Student’s particular experiences.
Other than Student’s first day of school, when he requested to be picked up after witnessing an altercation in the cafeteria, there is no evidence that Student was ever again dismissed from school due to anxiety or fear. Student himself did not report that he was triggered. To the extent that the District was made aware of Student’s fears, Springfield had a responsibility to respond, and it did. Springfield High School provided Student with regular counseling services to address any social-emotional concerns. Student also could have participated in group counseling sessions had GAL not withheld her consent. Moreover, after Student’s experience on his first day at Springfield High School, Principal Singer attempted to investigate the events that led to Student’s fears. She offered to and did, in fact, meet with Student to develop a safety plan. I also credit the testimony of District witnesses that Student reported different versions of his experience to different people, particularly as throughout his time at Springfield High School, he continued to perform well, and, despite his initial hesitancy to venture outside the substantially separate classroom, he joined the life of the school and voluntarily attended the prom (an extra-curricular activity). Student’s actual daily functioning, academic achievements, perfect attendance, and lack of behavioral infractions contradict Ms. Bowler’s assertion that the placement at Springfield High School was a "waste" or that Student suffered educational harm. The objective data, including Ms. Bowler’s communication to Dr. McCarthy acknowledging Student’s progress, overwhelmingly shows that Student made meaningful, measurable progress at Springfield High School.[68] Therefore, I find that Student received a FAPE between December 18, 2025, and March 12, 2026.
GAL failed to meet her burden on this claim.
4. Springfield Did Not Predetermine Student’s Placement For The March 2026 IEP.
GAL argues that Springfield predetermined Student's March 2026 IEP placement and excluded her from the placement process. The evidence does not support GAL’s claim
Ms. Bowler’s testimony that the District only presented Student with one option at the March and May 2026 Team meetings is contradicted by the documentary evidence and that of other attendees at those meetings. Rather, I conclude that during the May 15, 2026 Team meeting an exhaustive discussion as to potential placement assignments occurred wherein GAL's and DCF’s preferences were explicitly aired, considered, and analyzed in the context of Student's clinical and educational needs. During this meeting, the Team engaged in an extensive, item-by-item review of the placement options at Central and Putnam, requested by GAL, as well as at the High School of Science and Technology, and at Commerce. The District considered each option but provided legitimate reasons for rejecting all but Commerce[69], and its reasons for selecting Commerce were aligned with Student’s needs. As the District explained, it proposed Commerce because it is the smallest comprehensive high school in the District, operates in small learning academies, and houses a dedicated SEBS program that could fully implement Student's accepted partial inclusion IEP. Although the District rejected GAL's preferred schools, the IDEA does not require that a parent’s (or, in the instant matter, GAL’s) preferred program be chosen.[70] Neither does IDEA “prevent[] [the school district] from selecting the [] school site for the implementation of [Student’s] IEP, notwithstanding parental input to the contrary.”[71]
Because the record conclusively reflects that GAL’s preferred options were fully evaluated, discussed, and addressed during the March and May 2026 Team meetings, GAL was not prohibited from meaningfully participating in this determination.
GAL has not met her burden on this claim.
5. Commerce’s SEBS Program Is An Appropriate Placement For Student.
GAL fully accepted the partial inclusion placement proposed in the March 2026 IEP in a SEBS program, which provides intensive therapeutic, counseling, and social-emotional behavioral supports. Her claim centers entirely on the proposed assignment location. However, the IDEA does not “explicitly require parental participation in site selection.”[72] Thus, the fact that “parents must be involved in determining educational placement’ does not necessarily mean they must be involved in site selection.”[73]
In the instant matter, the clinical and educational evaluations emphasize that Student possesses high cognitive abilities but suffers from severe, complex trauma, ADHD, and executive functioning deficits. The clinical consensus is that Student requires a therapeutic, highly predictable, supportive environment with a low student-to-staff ratio, explicit social skills instruction, and quick access to clinical counseling to manage his "fight or flight" responses.
Commerce’s SEBS program is the smallest in the District and provides a highly structured therapeutic environment with small classes, high staff-to-student ratios, dedicated special educators, paraprofessionals, and on-site clinical counselors. Crucially, Commerce offers opportunities for partial inclusion, allowing Student to transition into general education classrooms as mandated by his IEP, while retaining a "home base" with intensive therapeutic support. Commerce's SEBS program can implement the partial inclusion services of the IEP, making it the appropriate and least restrictive environment for Student to receive a FAPE. There was no evidence offered by GAL or DCF to the contrary.
GAL's and DCF’s objections to Commerce were based on general, non-student-specific concerns, such as Commerce’s status in the Springfield Empowerment Zone, its poor overall academic performance, and a stereotype regarding Commerce students (i.e., they "have problems").[74] Even if these objections had been supported by evidence (which they are not), such administrative and demographic characteristics do not impact the legal appropriateness of the special education services that the record demonstrates can and will be delivered within Commerce’s SEBS program. The SEBS program at Commerce is staffed by appropriate licensed educators and service providers, similar to those in other district-wide SEBS programs and equipped to implement every service on Student's IEP. Although Ms. Bowler opined that Student would be triggered by Commerce, her opinion was based solely on speculation. [75] Similar to GAL’s and DCF’s objections to Springfield High School, there was no credible evidence presented to support their claims that any aspect of Commerce would in fact have a “triggering” impact on Student, and Student’s psychological assessment included no recommendations that would render Commerce an inappropriate option for Student. Therefore, I find that Commerce’s SEBS program is an appropriate placement and represents the least restrictive environment in which the District can implement the accepted March 2026 IEP.[76] GAL did not meet her burden on this claim.[77]
Regarding GAL’s argument that Student should receive door-to-door transportation, I note that the IDEA requires transportation when necessary for a disabled child to benefit from special education.[78] At this time, based on the record, it does not appear that by refusing to provide door-to-door transportation, the District has deprived Student of access to a FAPE. Specifically, Student’s attendance has been exemplary, suggesting that his current mode of general transportation has offered him access to a FAPE. While GAL and the group home staff advocated for door-to-door transportation, they did so on the grounds that public transportation was unsafe or unavailable or that the bus stop was too far away, not that Student required such transportation due to his disability. Nevertheless, Ms. Phillips testified that Student may meet the criterion for door-to-door transportation but did not elaborate on her rationale. Therefore, as suggested by Ms. Pope, the District is instructed to collect data regarding Student's transportation needs, convene the Team to review that information, and revise the IEP, if/as warranted by the data.
ORDER:
I find and order as follows:
1. Springfield Public Schools failed to comply with its obligation to consult with GAL when determining a comparable placement for Student following Student’s transfer into the District. However, such failure did not result in a denial of a FAPE. Accordingly, compensatory relief is not warranted. Springfield is nevertheless reminded of its obligation under 34 C.F.R. § 300.323(e) to engage in meaningful consultation with parents and guardians, including an educational GAL, where applicable, when determining a comparable placement for a transfer student. Within thirty (30) school days of the issuance of this Decision, Springfield shall provide training to all relevant personnel regarding the consultation requirements imposed by 34 C.F.R. § 300.323(e).
2. The program offered at Springfield High School, including general transportation, constituted a comparable placement to Student’s last accepted educational placement at South Hadley.
3. Springfield did not deny Student a FAPE between December 18, 2025 and March 12, 2026.
4. Springfield did not predetermine Student’s placement in connection with the March 2026 IEP Team process.
5. The SEBS program at Commerce High School is reasonably calculated to provide Student with a FAPE. As Central’s SEBS program is also appropriate, should a spot there become available, the Team is instructed to review whether such a transfer is appropriate in light of Student's needs at that time.
6. At the start of the 2026-2027 school year, the District shall collect data regarding Student's transportation needs, convene the Team to review that information, and revise the IEP, if/as warranted by the data.
So Ordered,
By the Hearing Officer[79],
/s/ Alina Kantor Nir
Alina Kantor Nir, Hearing Officer
August 3, 2026
Footnotes
[1] Although the GAL requested that the hearing be open to the public, and that request was granted prior to the commencement of the hearing, on the first day of hearing the undersigned Hearing Officer ordered the hearing closed after allowing DCF's objection. Said objection was based on newly raised concerns that conducting the proceedings in an open forum could jeopardize Student's health and safety.
[2] This exhibit was submitted by DCF in response to testimony presented on the second day of hearing.
[3] The Hearing Officer received Gal’s Closing Argument on July 16, 2026 at 4:06 PM. At 4:17 PM on the same day, the District submitted its Closing Argument, stating, in part, that “[o]n December 1, 2025, the Education GAL sent a threatening and disparaging email to the Supervisor of Special Education, telling the Supervisor of Special Education to ‘stop lying for a while’ about the SOC Process and telling the Supervisor that the Education GAL is ‘bringing the entire nation’ and ‘there will be no meetings and no placement discussions until ‘items are produced.’” Following submission of Springfield’s Closing Argument, via email dated July 16, 2026, GAL indicated her intention have the District’s statement that she had “threatened anybody [be] removed as that is libel and actionable.” On July 17, 2026, GAL filed Education Guardian Ad Litem's Motion To Strike Or Disregard Respondent's Unsupported Characterization Of Exhibit S-20. As the record closed on July 16, 2026, with the submission of Closing Arguments, I do not entertain GAL’s Motion. However, even if I were to entertain the Motion, I would find it to be without merit. Hearing Officers are not bound by the rules of evidence applicable to Massachusetts courts, but at times we turn to them for guidance. Mass. Guide to Evid. § 1113(2) instructs that closing argument “must be based on the evidence and the fair inferences from the evidence. It may contain enthusiastic rhetoric, strong advocacy, and excusable hyperbole. It is permissible to argue from the evidence that a witness, document, or other evidence is or is not credible, as well as to suggest the conclusions, if any, that should be drawn from the evidence.” Pursuant to Mass. Guide to Evid. § 1113(3), the “following are not permissible in a closing argument: (A) to misstate the evidence, to refer to facts not in evidence (including excluded matters), to use evidence for a purpose other than the limited purpose for which it was admitted, or to suggest inferences not fairly based on the evidence; (B) to state a personal opinion about the credibility of a witness, the evidence, or the ultimate issue of guilt or liability; (C) to appeal to the jurors' emotions, passions, prejudices, or sympathies; (D) to ask the jurors to put themselves in the position of any person involved in the case; (E) to misstate principles of law, to make any statement that shifts the burden of proof, or to ask the finder of fact to infer guilt based on the defendant's exercise of a constitutional right; and (F) to ask the jury to disregard the court's instructions.” Here, the District’s characterization of GAL’s email (S-20) is within the allowable bounds of advocacy.
[4] Following the first day of Hearing, over the objection of DCF, and at the request of GAL with Springfield’s assent, Issue Nos. 4 and 5 were added to the instant dispute.
[5] Mary Ellen Pope, Springfield's Special Education Supervisor for High School, discussed the proposed placement with South Hadley and confirmed that South Hadley had proposed a substantially separate program for Student. (Pope) Although the South Hadley IEP Service Delivery Grid, which the GAL rejected, appears to provide only approximately 55 minutes of daily pull-out services, no evidence was presented at Hearing to contradict Ms. Pope's testimony that the proposed placement was substantially separate.
[6] Mr. Welch has served in this role since 2009. (Welch)
[7] In a subsequent email dated January 9, 2026, the DCF Western Regional Education Specialist explained to the GAL that the weekly meeting between DCF and Springfield was a general forum to discuss students entering or leaving the district through the Best Interest Discussion process and was not convened specifically for Student. She further stated that Springfield independently determined the enrollment process for incoming students, that DCF had no role or input in the decision to use the SOC process, and that she learned Student had been processed through SOC only after the decision had been made and Student had already been assigned to Springfield High School. (P-14) Dr. McCarthy and Mr. Welch explained that a DCF representative is always present at the “standing” weekly meeting, as this is the process through which the District gains information regarding students who enroll in the District through the BID process. (McCarthy, Welch)
[8] The report states that the evaluation was completed by South Hadley at South Hadley High School, presumably before Student enrolled at Springfield. However, Ms. Pope believed this assessment was still outstanding when Student enrolled at Springfield. (Pope) It appears that at some time before the March 2026 IEP Team meeting, discussed infra, this evaluation was forwarded to Springfield.
[9] It appears GAL was referring to the Student of Concern (SOC) process.
[10] On December 9, 2025, Dr. McCarthy wrote to the Superintendent of Schools in Springfield that Student “has had an assignment since 11/7 that was thoughtfully made though а review of enrollment paperwork, which included an initial IEP that was not accepted.” (P-5) However, it appears the assignment was made on November 10, not November 7.
[11] I note that the South Hadley IEP was rejected in full.
[12] On November 19, 2025, Ms. Phillips emailed a meeting invitation to Student’s Team but used an incorrect email address for Ms. Guyette. Ms. Phillips was unaware of this error at the time and does not recall the email bouncing back to her. (Phillips, DCF-1)
[13] The email communication is copied verbatim including formatting.
[14] The references to “Commerce” in this communication are unclear as Student was assigned to Springfield High School, not Commerce.
[15] Ms. Pope recalled that Springfield received the report on March 3, 2026. Although Student reported to the evaluator that he was attending school, had no issues with school, and was earning passing grades, Student was not in fact attending school at the time of the evaluation. (Pope, S-21)
[16] This request was denied in a December 9, 2025 Ruling. See In Re: Student v. Springfield Public Schools (Ruling On Guardian Ad Litem’s Multiple Motions And On Parties’ Cross-Motions For Summary Judgement), BSEA # 26-05261(December 9, 2025).
[17] Student testified his walk to the bus stop is five minutes long. (Student)
[18] The Agreement Between the Springfield Education Association and the Springfield School Committee for the Springfield Empowerment Zone Partnership Schools states, in part, that the Springfield School Committee has vested the Springfield Empowerment Zone Partnership with full managerial and operational control of the Empowerment Zone schools up to the limit of state law, but the Springfield School Committee remains the employer of record. (P-20)
[19] GAL’s Exhibit P-16 appears to be a list of Springfield schools and their respective principals. According to this exhibit, Commerce shares its principal with Emergence Academy. (P-16)
[20] According to Ms. Pope, Commerce is located in a building with 3 other schools, but they are all separate entities per the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE), and each school has its own principal, administration team, and philosophy. Ms. Pope conceded that the four schools together have approximately 1900 students but stressed that each of the schools is run independently. (Pope)
[21] SEBS classes are capped at 18 students each across the District, including at Commerce, although the Central SEBS program is currently over capacity, with 19 and 21 students in each of its two classrooms.(Pope, McCarthy)
[22] 20 U.S.C. §1400 (d)(1)(A).
[23] See 20 U.S.C. §1401(9), (26), (29); 603 C.M.R. 28.05(4)(b); C.D. by and through M.D. v. Natick Public School District, 924 F.3d 621, 629 (1st Cir. 2019); Sebastian M. v. King Philip Reg'l Sch. Dist., 685 F.3d 79, 84 (1st Cir. 2012).
[24] 20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(5)(A); 34 C.F.R. 300.114(a)(2)(i); M.G.L. c. 71 B, §§2, 3; 603 C.M.R. 28.06(2)(c).
[25] 20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(5)(A); C.D., 924 F. 3d at 631 (internal citations omitted).
[26] C.G. ex rel. A.S. v. Five Town Comty. Sch. Dist., 513 F. 3d 279, 285 (1st Cir. 2008)
[27] Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 580 U.S. 386, 402 (2017).
[28] 34 C.F.R. §300.324(a)(i-v); Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 402; D.B. ex rel. Elizabeth B. v. Esposito, 675 F.3d 26, 34 (1st Cir. 2012); N. Reading Sch. Comm. v. Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals of Mass. Dep't of Educ., 480 F. Supp. 2d 479, 489 (D. Mass. 2007) (“The First Circuit has characterized the federal floor, which defines the minimum that must be offered to all handicapped children, as providing a meaningful, beneficial educational opportunity, and that Court has stated that a handicapped child's educational program must be reasonably calculated to provide effective results and demonstrable improvement in the various educational and personal skills identified as special needs”) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
[29] Roland M. v. Concord Sch. Comm., 910 F.2d 983, 992 (1st Cir. 1990).
[30] Bd. of Educ. of the Hendrick Hudson Central Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 197, n.21 (1982) (“Whatever Congress meant by an “appropriate” education, it is clear that it did not mean a potential-maximizing education”); see N. Reading Sch. Comm., 480 F. Supp. 2d at 488 (“The focus of inquiry under 20 U.S.C. §1415(e)(i) must recognize the IDEA's modest goal of an appropriate, rather than an ideal, education”).
[31] Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 400-401; see also 603 C.M.R. 28.02(17).
[32] Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 388 (“The nature of the IEP process, from the initial consultation through state administrative proceedings, ensures that parents and school representatives will fully air their respective opinions on the degree of progress a child's IEP should pursue”); see K.E. ex rel. K.E. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 15, 647 F.3d 795, 809 (8th Cir. 2011) (explaining that the court would not compare the student to her nondisabled peers since the key question was whether the student made gains in her areas of need).
[33] G.D. v. Westmoreland Sch. Dist., 930 F.2d 942, 948-949 (1st Cir. 1991).
[34] See 20 U.S.C § 1401(26)(a).
[35] See Id.
[36] See 34 C.F.R § 300.34(c)(16).
[37] See603 CMR 28.05.
[38] See 603 CMR 28.05(5)(b).
[39] See 603 CMR 28.05(5)(a).
[40] See 71 Fed. Reg. 46,576 (2006).
[41] 71 Fed. Reg. 46,576 (2006).
[42] See 20 U.S.C § 1401(26)(a); 603 CMR 28.05(5); see also Pierre-Noel v. Bridges Pub. Charter Sch., 113 F.4th 970, 983 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (stating IDEA only requires transportation for students that need it to benefit from special education).
[43] See In Re: Chicopee Public Schools & Oakley, BSEA # 11-2568 (Byrne 2010) (explaining that “transportation is a ‘related service’. The inquiry therefore focuses not on LRE, but initially on whether the service is necessary for the student to benefit from special education” and finding that the District lacked evaluative data to determine change of transportation).
[44] See Deal v. Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 392 F.3d 840, 853-54 (6th Cir. 2004).
[45] See Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 404.
[46] Deal, 392 F.3d at 854.
[47] 34 C.F.R. 300.513 (a)(2); see MM ex rel. DM v. Sch. Dist. of Greenville Cty., 303 F.3d 523, 533 (4th Cir. 2002).
[48] 20 USC §1414(d)(2)(C)(i)(I) (applying to intrastate transfers within the same academic year); 34 C.F.R. § 300.323(3) (same). See Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities and Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities, 71 Fed. Reg. 46540, 46682 (2006) (clarifying with respect to this provision that when a child moves to new school district before the next school year begins and an IEP was developed or reviewed and revised at or after the end of a school year for implementation during the next school year, the new school district could decide to adopt and implement that IEP, unless the new school district determines that an evaluation is needed. Otherwise, the newly designated IEP Team for the child in the new school district could develop, adopt, and implement a new IEP).
[49] 603 C.M.R. 28.03(c)(1).
[50] See Id.; 71 Fed. Reg. 46540, 46681(2006) (declining commenters' suggestion to define "comparable services" in the regulations).
[51] Ms. S. ex rel. G v. Vashon Island Sch. Dist., 337 F.3d 1115, 1134 (9th Cir. 2003).
[52] Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 62 (2008).
[53] Id. (places the burden of proof in an administrative hearing on the party seeking relief).
[54] In making my determinations, I rely on the facts I have found as set forth in the Findings of Facts, above, and incorporate them by reference to avoid restating them except where necessary.
[55] See 34 C.F.R. 300.116(a)(1); 34 C.F.R. 300.501(c); and 71 Fed. Reg. 46585 (2006).
[56] In her Closing Argument, GAL erroneously conflates the concept of meaningful participation with that of consultation, stating, “Meaningful participation requires more than attendance at meetings. It requires meaningful consultation before important educational decisions become fixed.”
[57] Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019).
[58] Citations referenced by the District are omitted.
[59] See R.S., 2019 WL 1025930, at *13 (internal citations omitted).
[60] Ruby, 122 F. Supp. 3d at 1302–03 (internal citations omitted).
[61] DESE’s Alternative Education Options Guidance To Create, Support, And/Or Improve Alternative Education Options For Students At-Risk Of Not Completing High School.
[62] See James D. v. Bd. of Educ. of Aptakisic-Tripp Cmty. Consol. Sch. Dist. No. 102, 642 F. Supp. 2d 804, 823 (N.D. Ill. 2009) (“The degree to which a placement option is restrictive turns on the amount of time that it calls for the student to be educated in the regular classroom with nondisabled peers. The more time a placement allows the student to be in the regular classroom, the less restrictive it is considered, and vice versa”).
[63] See In Re: Chicopee Public Schools & Oakley, BSEA # 11-2568 (Byrne 2010) (holding that the District lacked evaluative data to determine change of transportation).
[64] From the date of Student’s enrollment on November 6, 2025, until December 18, 2025, while GAL was contesting the SOC assignment process with Springfield’s administrators, Student did not attend school. Because the District had a placement available for Student, the District cannot be held liable for a denial of FAPE during this period. See Y.B. on behalf of S.B. v. Howell Twp. Bd. of Educ., 4 F.4th 196, 201 (3d Cir. 2021) (“Rather than sending S.B. to Howell and then challenging the services as inadequate through a due process hearing—the procedure contemplated by the IDEA—Appellant eschewed the school district's offer, refused to send S.B. to Howell, and unilaterally continued his placement at SCHI. In doing so, Appellant prevented Howell from implementing its services at all, so there is no evidence the services offered were not ‘comparable.’ Because the record lacks evidence of non-comparable services, Howell did not violate the IDEA”). It is concerning that DCF was aware of Student's nonattendance and did not appear to take any action to address the issue.
[65] I also note that when the District offered Student a new IEP with placement at Commerce High School, Student chose to remain at Springfield High School and not to transfer to Commerce.
[66] See Fry v. Napoleon, 580 US 154, 167-68 (2017) (holding that in situations where a dispute does not involve the IDEA’s FAPE requirement “even though the dispute is between a child with a disability and the school she attends … the hearing officer cannot provide the requested relief. [The hearing officer’s] role, under the IDEA, is to enforce the child’s ‘substantive right’ to a FAPE…. And that is all”) (internal citations omitted); see also In Re: Springfield Pub. Schs., et. al., BSEA #2309351 (Ruling, Mitchell, 2023) (BSEA has no authority to address violations that pertain to a right that is available to all students regardless of their disability status or eligibility under the IDEA”). See also In Re: Westfield Public Schools, BSEA# 2401035 (Mitchell, 2023) (typically, general education decisions are outside the jurisdiction of the BSEA).
[67] See D.G. by & through Goan v. Alpine Union Sch. Dist., 817 F. Supp. 3d 932, 953 (S.D. Cal. 2025) (“Plaintiff's safety issues as originally pled would have required the ALJ to include and consider the question of whether the physical safety of the campus denied Student a FAPE”); Lillbask ex rel. Mauclaire v. State of Conn. Dep't of Educ., 397 F.3d 77, 93 (2d Cir. 2005) (“IDEA requires a state to implement procedural safeguards providing parents or guardians with an opportunity to present complaints 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. This broad language suggests that Congress did not intend to exclude from consideration any subject matter—including safety concerns—that could interfere with a disabled child's right to receive a free appropriate public education”) (internal citations and quotation omitted); In Re: Student v. Stoneham Public Schools, BSEA # 26-10932 (Kantor-Nir 2026) (“Not every alleged wrong imposed on a student eligible under the IDEA or Section 504 is actionable before the BSEA and claims that assert violations of rights applicable to all students, such as generalized safety concerns or failures to investigate safety allegations, fall outside its jurisdiction when asserted as standalone claims. However, where such allegations are framed as contributing to a denial of a FAPE, the BSEA may properly exercise jurisdiction. … Parents allege that the classroom environment caused Student emotional distress and fear, thereby interfering with her ability to access educational services. … I find that these allegations are sufficient to state a plausible claim for denial of FAPE”).
[68] In her Closing Argument, GAL argued that the “IDEA does not require children to fail before they are protected. Nor does it permit a student's resilience to excuse deficiencies in the educational process.” The proposition to which GAL refers relates to the Child Find process and is irrelevant to the instant matter. See 34 C.F.R. § 300.101(c)(1) ("Each State must ensure that FAPE is available to any individual child with a disability who needs special education and related services, even though the child has not failed or been retained in a course or grade and is advancing from grade to grade"). Moreover, without minimizing Student’s resilience, I find that Student’s progress at Springfield High School was the result of the provision of a FAPE.
[69] The District’s rejection of the High School of Science and Technology was based on GAL’s shared concerns with this placement.
[70] See G.D. v. Westmoreland Sch. Dist., 930 F.2d 942, 948 (1st Cir. 1991) (“courts have concluded that a FAPE may not be the only appropriate choice, or the choice of certain selected experts, or the child's parents' first choice, or even the best choice”); see also Kass v. W. Dubuque Cmty. Sch. Dist., 101 F.4th 562, 570 (8th Cir. 2024) (“the IDEA does not require that parental preferences guide educational decisions, only that parental preferences are consider[ed] and address[ed]”) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
[71] White ex rel. White v. Ascension Par. Sch. Bd., 343 F.3d 373, 383 (5th Cir. 2003).
[72] Id. at 379 (5th Cir. 2003); see In re: Student v. Northborough Public Schools, BSEA # 2201162 (Kantor Nir, 2022) (“A parent may not dictate staffing assignments to a school district; such responsibility is wholly within the prerogative of the district, provided that the staff assigned has the education, training and expertise to provide the service”).
[73] Id. See Unknown Party v. Gilbert Unified Sch. Dist., No. CV-16-02614-PHX-JJT, 2017 WL 3225189, at *7 (D. Ariz. July 31, 2017), aff'd sub nom. R. M. by & through S.M. v. Gilbert Unified Sch. Dist., 768 F. App'x 720 (9th Cir. 2019) (“A school district has the administrative authority to choose the setting or physical school to implement a student’s IEP without the parent’s additional participation, so long as the school has the ability to implement the IEP and the parents participated in creating the IEP”).
[74] GAL also argued that the location of Commerce as compared to Central should be a factor against the Commerce proposal as it is in a “desolate” unattractive setting which does not lend itself to a therapeutic environment. Even if this is an accurate representation, there has been no recommendation from any expert that Student requires a specific physical environment, neighborhood, or campus aesthetic in order to receive a FAPE, nor is there evidence that the surrounding setting of the school would materially affect Student’s ability to access instruction or make effective progress.
[75] According to Ms. Bowler, Commerce was unsafe and included more “problem” students, however this testimony was conclusory and unsupported by the record. No documentary evidence, data, or other testimony was offered to substantiate these assertions. Nor was there any evidence demonstrating that Commerce is less safe than other schools within Springfield Public Schools. As such, I do not credit Ms. Bowler’s characterization of Commerce.
[76] GAL argued that because Commerce High School is part of the Empowerment Zone, it is, in fact, an out-of-district placement. 603 C.M.R. 28.02(14) defines an out-of-district program as “a special education program located in a building or facility outside of the general education environment that provides educational services primarily to students with disabilities and [] include[s] all programs approved under 603 C.M.R. 28.09. Such program may be operated by a private organization or individual, a public school district, or a collaborative.” Pursuant to 603 C.M.R. 28.02(10) 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.” Based on the documentary evidence provided by GAL and the persuasive and credible testimony of Dr. McCarthy, I find that Commerce High School provides educational services to students of comparable age, with and without disabilities and is under the supervision of the Superintendent of Springfield Public Schools. As such, there is no evidence that Commerce High School is an out of district program.
[77] I do not however agree with Springfield that Central's size renders its SEBS program inappropriate for Student. GAL persuasively argued that although the SEBS program at Commerce is relatively small, its co-location with other schools creates the atmosphere of a larger high school campus, making it more comparable to Central despite the schools' separate DESE designations. Nevertheless, Dr. McCarthy and Ms. Pope credibly testified that the SEBS program at Central is full, and school districts may restrict assignments to programs that have reached capacity. Although Ms. Pope testified that the District may, at times and under appropriate circumstances, place students in Springfield programs that have reached capacity, the BSEA has no authority to order the District to remove another student, exceed the program's capacity, or otherwise dictate the District's internal allocation of seats. Rather, the District's obligation is to provide Student with a placement capable of implementing his IEP and providing a FAPE. Should a seat become available at Central in the future, GAL remains free to request that the Team consider whether a transfer to that program is appropriate in light of Student's needs.
[78] 20 U.S.C. § 1401(a)(17).
[79] The undersigned Hearing Officer is grateful for the diligent research assistance of legal intern Olivia Syat.