COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Student v. Springfield Public Schools
BSEA # 26-05261
RULING ON EMERGENCY REQUEST FOR INTERIM ORDER FOR DOOR-TO-DOOR TRANSPORTATION
This matter comes to the Hearing Officer on the Guardian Ad Litem’s (GAL) February 2, 2026, Emergency Request For Interim Order For Door-To-Door Transportation. In it, GAL requests an emergency interim order requiring Springfield Public Schools to immediately provide door-to-door transportation for Student due to “documented safety failures, unsupervised absences, and the District’s complete failure to respond or intervene, despite actual notice of serious risk.” The request is based on recent safety failures as alleged below. Student (a student with disabilities in DCF custody living in a congregate care program)[1] has repeatedly failed to arrive at school as expected. On February 2, 2026, Student traveled unsupervised in the community during school hours, including to unapproved locations. He contacted his DCF worker while unsupervised and arrived late to school, missing instruction. DCF had to step in to transport Student because the District had no safe plan. Despite actual notice of these risks, the District did not contact the Guardian ad Litem; did not investigate; did not convene a safety or transportation meeting; and did not modify Student’s transportation. GAL argues that transportation is a related service under IDEA when necessary for safe access to education, that districts cannot offer transportation they know is unsafe for a particular student, and that Hearing Officers may order interim relief to prevent harm and ensure access to FAPE. Because harm has already occurred, the risk is not speculative.
On February 9, 2026, Springfield Public Schools filed Opposition To GAL’s Motion Regarding Door-to-Door Transportation, asserting that “The matter of specialized transportation is outside the matters before the hearing officer and there has been no clinical or legal finding that [STUDENT] requires a more restrictive related service. Springfield, however, shall generate a team meeting notice to discuss specialized transportation (and the IEP in general) forthwith.”
Of note, the BSEA has already narrowed the issues in this matter to placement comparability and consultation with the GAL.
LEGAL STANDARDS AND APPLICATION OF LEGAL STANDARDS:
The directive to ensure that children with disabilities are educated with children who are nondisabled to the maximum extent appropriate is set out in 34 CFR 300.114(a)(2)(i). This requirement applies to all special education services and in “nonacademic settings,” which includes transportation.[2] The regulations implementing the IDEA state that transportation includes travel to and from school and between schools; travel in and around school buildings; and specialized equipment if required to provide special transportation for a child with a disability.[3] The IEP team determines “if transportation is required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education and related services, and how the transportation services should be implemented. 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.[4] 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.[5]
Although BSEA Hearing Officers have broad authority to fashion relief,[6] I decline to order interim relief in this matter. Transportation decisions must be made by the Team. Here, the Team has not had an opportunity to assess whether such a related service is necessary. GAL is an experienced and knowledgeable educational advocate. If GAL believes that Student requires specialized transportation, such as door-to-door transportation, the proper recourse is to request that the Team reconvene to assess Student’s need for door-to-door transportation.
ORDER:
GAL’s Emergency Request For Interim Order For Door-To-Door Transportation is hereby DENIED.
So Ordered by the Hearing Officer,
/s/ Alina Kantor Nir
Alina Kantor Nir
Dated: February 9, 2026
Footnotes
[1] Student transferred from a different district to Springfield Public Schools.
[2] 34 CFR 300.117; and 71 Fed. Reg. 46,576 (2006).
[3] 34 CFR 300.34(c)(16).
[4] See 71 Fed. Reg. 46,576 (2006).
[5] 71 Fed. Reg. 46,576 (2006).
[6] See M.G.L. c. 71B, § 3 (in rendering her decision, the Hearing Officer has broad authority to “order such educational placement and services as [s]he deems appropriate and consistent with this chapter to assure the child receives a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment”).