COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Student v. The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
BSEA# 26-08620
RULING ON PARENTS’ MOTION TO AMEND HEARING REQUEST
On January 14, 2026, Parents filed a Hearing Request against the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (the Department or DESE)[1] (BSEA # 2607507). The matter was dismissed with prejudice in my Ruling on The Department’s Motion to Dismiss on January 21, 2026 (the First Ruling). On January 23, 2026, Parents again filed a Hearing Request against DESE (BSEA # 2608048)asserting the identical claims which were dismissed in the First Ruling. The matter was dismissed with prejudice in my Ruling on The Department’s Motion to Dismiss on February 3, 2026 (the Second Ruling). On the same day, Parents filed a Hearing Request (BSEA # 2608620) asserting the identical claims which were dismissed in the First Ruling and in the Second Ruling.
On February 11, 2026, DESE filed Department’s Motion to Dismiss, asking the BSEA to dismiss the Hearing Request in its entirety and issue an order limiting future filings by the Parents presenting claims regarding the Student identical to claims that the BSEA has already dismissed.[2]
On February 12[3], 2026, Parents filed an Amendment, seeking to amend the initial Hearing Request filed on February 3, 2026 by adding a new claim against DESE. Specifically, Parents assert that DESE’s own guidance defines true inclusion as structured, evidence-based practice, requiring implementation of Universal Design for Learning (UDL), Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS), and Social-Emotional Learning (SEL), but, although Student’s current placement is labeled “inclusion,” it does not implement these frameworks. Rather, Student receives standard general education instruction with accommodations added only after failure, no tiered PBIS system, and no embedded SEL instruction, and he experiences reactive discipline for disability-related behaviors in a setting without structured supports. Parents assert that mislabeling an unsupported general education placement as “inclusion” is discriminatory because it denies Student meaningful access to curriculum, equal access to program benefits in violation of §504, and reasonable modifications pursuant to ADA Title II. Moreover, Parents argue that disability inclusion under IDEA is not a DEI initiative but a statutory civil rights mandate. Districts may not weaken UDL, PBIS, or SEL by recharacterizing them as DEI-related. Doing so would result in a discriminatory impact on students with disabilities. Parents seek findings that Student’s current “inclusion” setting is discriminatory as implemented, that inclusion without evidence-based supports violates IDEA and §504, and that Student needs either a properly supported inclusive placement or a more intensive specialized setting, as well as compensatory education. They also request findings that IDEA-based inclusion is legally distinct from DEI policy and cannot be reduced based on federal DEI directives.
During a conference call held by the Hearing Officer on February 12, 2026 with the parties, DESE indicated it would not object to the Motion to Amend and will respond to the new claim pursuant to the amended timelines. On the same date, DESE’s Counsel indicated via email that “DESE does not object to the motion to amend [] to the extent that the amended hearing request adds a claim that is different from claims that [were] previously filed on behalf of the Student and that have already been dismissed in BSEA Nos. 2605857, 2607507, and 2608048.”
DISCUSSION AND ORDER:
1. Legal Standards:
BSEA Hearing Rule I(G) allows the moving party to amend the Hearing Request under two circumstances:
“1. In response to a Hearing Officer’s determination that a hearing request is insufficient, as described in E, above, the moving party may file an amended hearing request within fourteen (14) calendar days of the date of the Hearing Officer’s determination.
2. If the other party consents in writing, did they so consent in writing? If or the Hearing Officer grants permission. (The Hearing Officer may not grant such permission later than five (5) calendar days before the start of the hearing.)
Whenever a hearing request is amended, the entire process starts over for the purpose of timelines, as if the amended hearing request were a new request….”
ORDER:
Consistent with BSEA Hearing Rule 1(G), Parents’ request to amend is ALLOWED. All timelines will be recalculated, and an Amended Notice of Hearing will be issued to the parties.
So Ordered,
/s/ Alina Kantor Nir
Alina Kantor Nir
Date: February 12, 2026
Footnotes
[1] Parents did not name Dudley-Charlton Regional School District as a party in the matter.
[2] This Ruling does not address DESE’s February 11, 2026 Motion to Dismiss.
[3] Parents filed the Amendment after business hours on February 11, 2026. As such, it is deemed to have been filed on February 12, 2026.