COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Student v. Pittsfield Public Schools
BSEA # 26-10342
DECISION
This decision is issued pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 USC 1400 et seq. (hereafter IDEA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 USC 794), the state special education law (MGL ch. 71B), the state Administrative Procedure Act (M.G.L. ch. 30A), and the regulations promulgated under these statutes.
On March 16, 2026, Parent filed a Hearing Request in the above-referenced matter with the BSEA. Thereafter, on April 1, 2026, Parent filed an Amended Hearing Request (Amendment) triggering recalculation of the Hearing timelines. The Amendment clarified that an issue raised in the initial Hearing Request warranted expedited status. Consistent with Rule II. C of the Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals, Parent’s claims were bifurcated and two Re-Calculated Notices of Hearing were issued on April 1, 2026. The Re-calculated Notice of Hearing on the expedited matter scheduled the Hearing for April 6, 2026.[1]
On April 2, 2026, the District filed a Motion to Remove Issue from Expedited Track, noting that the District had removed from Student’s record the in-house suspension that triggered the Manifestation Determination Review Meeting with which Parent took issue, thereby dispensing with the need to proceed on an expedited track. Parent objected, and following a telephone conference call on Friday, April 3, 2026, the undersigned Hearing Officer determined that the discipline related claim would proceed to hearing on the expedited track. Pittsfield’s Attorney explained that she was unavailable on April 6, 2026, and verbally requested a short continuance, which Parent opposed.
Later on April 3, 2026, the District filed a request for postponement of the Expedited Hearing through April 9, 2026, and after some back and forth communication regarding the Parties’ availability, the request for postponement was granted in part through Tuesday April 7, 2026. Submission of exhibits and witness lists was extended through 2:00 p.m. on Monday April 6, 2026. The Parties complied with the deadlines established in the April 3, 2026, Order. The postponement did not affect the timeline for issuance of the expedited decision.
The Expedited Hearing was held remotely on April 7, 2026, before Hearing Officer Rosa I. Figueroa. Those present for all or part of the proceedings were:
Mother
Father
Stacey M. Dedian, Esq. Attorney for Pittsfield Public Schools
Melissa Brites Director of Special Education, Pittsfield Public Schools
Ryan Fuller School Principal, Eagle Educational Academy, Pittsfield Public Schools
Aaron J. Couture Assistant Special Education Director, Pittsfield Public Schools
The official record of the hearing consists of documents submitted by Student and marked as exhibits PE-1 to PE-15, exhibits submitted by Pittsfield Public Schools (Pittsfield or District) and marked as exhibits SE-1 to SE-8, and recorded oral testimony. The Parties submitted written closing arguments on April 7, 2026.
ISSUES:
1. Whether Pittsfield failed to convene a manifestation determination review meeting after Student was suspended over ten (10) days between February and March of 2026;
2. Whether Pittsfield provided Parents with proper notifications regarding the in-school suspensions?
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES:
Mother’s Position:
Mother asserts that Pittsfield failed to convene a manifestation determination review (MDR) meeting after 2 suspensions between February and March of 2026, while Student was participating in an extended evaluation at Eagle Educational Academy. Since Student had been placed in a long-term suspension in November of 2025, any subsequent suspension was in excess of ten (10) days.
Student’s first suspension during the 2025-2026 school year occurred in November of 2025, pursuant to 37H ½ disciplinary action. Since then, he has been in a long-term suspension exceeding ten cumulative days, and requiring the District to convene Student’s Team to conduct MDRs for each a additional suspension during this school year.
Mother further asserts that Pittsfield failed to provide her and Father with proper notifications regarding the in-school suspensions served by Student in February and March of 2026. Specifically, she states that no formal suspension letter or MDR notice was attached to the letter imposing an in-school suspension on Monday February 9, 2026. She also asserts that she did not receive the Notice of Procedural Safeguards together with the N1 issued following the manifestation determination review in January of 2026.
Mother seeks that the District be accountable for failing to comply with procedural requirements regarding discipline.[2]
Pittsfield’s Position:
Pittsfield concedes that Student’s February 2026 suspension triggered an MDR because Student was already in a long-term suspension under 37H ½, and that the MDR did not take place. Pittsfield’s Accountability Coordinator contacted Mother to convene the MDR within 10 school days of the determination to discipline Student and when Mother declined to meet, the District made no further attempts to engage Mother. Pittsfield offered to remove the suspension from Student’s record and in fact did so.
According to Pittsfield, the remedy Parent seeks is not available as: an order to remove the suspension from Student’s record had already been done;, other possible remedies ( such as compensatory services, additional evaluations or modifications to the IEP) were not in order because Student was participating in an extended evaluation to determine what modifications to the IEP were necessary; a return to placement was inappropriate because the behavior occurred at the extended evaluation, which is not a placement, and furthermore, he returned to his classroom the same day immediately following the suspension; and he received educational services during the three hour in-house suspension at issue.
Lastly, Pittsfield asserts that Mother has not requested a remedy that the BSEA is able to provide and she did not show that Student suffered substantial harm or was denied a FAPE as a result of the three-hour, in-house suspension served on February 10, 2026.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. Student is a sixteen-year-old, eleventh grader who resides with Mother in Pittsfield, Massachusetts. He has been found eligible to receive special education services. Father lives at a separate undisclosed location.
2. On November 4, 2025, Parent was notified by Pittsfield High School’s Principal, Lynn Taylor, that Student was suspended pursuant to M.G.L. c. 71 §37H½ pending the outcome of a criminal complaint containing two felonies. Ms. Taylor further notified Mother that an expulsion hearing would be deferred pending the outcome of the criminal complaint, and she noted that as a long-term suspension had been imposed, tutoring would be provided to Student during the suspension period. Ms. Taylor further informed Parent of her right of appeal and a Hearing with the Superintendent (PE-1; PE-10; PE-11; PE-12; SE-1). Mother, Ms. Taylor and Melyssa Weiner, Special Education Instructional and Accountability Coordinator for Pittsfield, also communicated via email the same day (PE-12).
3. Student’s attorney in Juvenile Court, Raymond Jacoub, Esq., appealed the suspension to Latifah Phillips, Pittsfield’s Superintendent of Schools, on or about November 5, 2025, and again on November 10, 2025, in the hopes that Student could return to school when he was released from custody (SE-2).
4. Email threads between November 17, 2025 and January 15, 2026, reflect the numerous communications between Student’s representatives, potential representatives, Pittsfield’s staff and the District’s attorney attempting to schedule the Superintendent’s Hearing and a Manifestation Determination Review (MDR) following Student’s November 4, 2025 suspension. The MDR meeting and the Superintendent’s hearing were delayed at the request of Student’s representatives, Attorney Jacoub and Hannah Llende[3], who requested time to review Student’s records before taking on representing him. The email threads show that Father was added to the email thread on November 19, 2025, and he did not respond to any of the communications (SE-3; SE-4).
5. On December 3, 2025, Attorney Jacoub confirmed that he would only represent Student in the Superintendent’s hearing, and Parent requested that the MDR process be paused until MHLA determined whether they would represent Student (SE-3).
6. Attorney Jacoub emailed Pittsfield personnel on December 15, 2026, seeking to schedule the Superintendent’s hearing and the MDR, noting that tutoring was not working well for Student. Courtney Fallon, the attorney involved in Student’s CRA, and attorney Jessica Fried, were added to the email thread (SE-3). The following day, Attorney Dedian responded that the process had been halted at Parent’s request, as she awaited a response from Health Law Advocates (HLA) regarding legal representation of Student at the MDR and a case then pending before the BSEA (SE-3).[4] Mother wrote to the District on December 16, 2025, stating that Attorney Jessie Fried would take over legal representation for Student from Hannah Llende, Esq., and acknowledging that the MDR and the Superintendent’s hearing would likely take place after the holidays (SE-3).
7. On December 19, 2025, Mother informed the District that she had been granted permission by the Court to leave Massachusetts from December 25 to January 3, 2025, and she and Student’s three attorneys were available on December 24, 2025. She further noted that she was not available on January 5, 2026, as she was scheduled for a meeting in Juvenile Court (SE-3). The District staff was not available on December 24, 2025, so Pittsfield offered January 8, 13 and 14, 2026 as possible dates to convene the MDR and Superintendent’s hearing (SE-3).
8. Additional email communications between Attorney Fried and Attorney Dedian on December 23 and December 29, 2025, note that Attorney Fried would represent Student at the Superintendent’s hearing and the MDR, but not at the BSEA hearing (SE-3).
9. Melyssa Weiner, Special Education Instructional and Accountability Coordinator in Pittsfield, contacted Mother, Father, Student’s representatives and other Pittsfield administrators on January 8, 2026, to ascertain Student’s attorneys’ availability on January 13 and/ or 14, 2026, so the District could proceed with scheduling of Student’s MDR and the Superintendent’s hearing (SE-3).
10. On January 12, 2026, Attorney Fried confirmed that she and Parent were available on January 15, 2026, to participate in the Superintendent’s hearing (SE-4).
11. On January 13, 2026, Ms. Weiner offered to convene the MDR on January 15, 2026, prior to the Superintendent’s Hearing (SE-4).[5]
12. On January 14, 2026, Mother informed the District that Attorney Fried would not represent Student, that Attorney Jacoub would not be present and that Attorney Fallon was unavailable. Later on January 14, 2026, Attorneys Jacoub and Fallon confirmed this information. Attorney Dedian offered to convene the following week in January 2026, so that Attorney Fallon could attend the MDR with Parents (SE-4). Early on January 15, 2026, Attorney Jacoub confirmed his availability on the alternate date.
13. On January 14, 2026, Mother consented to Student’s participation in an extended evaluation at Eagle Educational Academy (Eagle) between January 19 and March 20, 2026 (PE-2). The District had recommended Student’s participation in an extended evaluation in September of 2025, prior to the incidents leading to disciplinary action by Pittsfield (Brites). Student however, stopped attending Eagle prior to completion of the evaluation.
14. Student’s MDR meeting was convened on January 22, 2026, and the invitation to the meeting was forwarded to the participants via Google Calendar. It notes, at the bottom of the invitation, that subscribers “may respond to the organizer, be added to the guest list, invite others regardless of their own invitation status…” (PE-13; SE-5). Those in attendance were: Melyssa Weiner (organizer), Aaron Couture, Kristen Negrini, Latifah Phillips, Lynn Taylor, Melissa Brites, Mother, Attorney Jacoub, Attorney Dedian, Sadiya Quetti-Goodson, Courtney Fallon and an unnamed individual whose email is “phantomkwizz@gmail.com”. Father did not attend the MDR.[6]
15. The MDR Team concluded that Student’s pending felony charges, resulting from an incident occurring outside of the school day, were not “caused by or had a direct and substantial relationship to Students disability.” Mother disagreed with the Team’s findings, instead opining that Student’s conduct was “related to his ADHD diagnosis and associated impulsivity” (SE-5). The N1 issued by the District following the meeting and forwarded to Parents on January 28, 2026, noted that Student was participating in an extended evaluation at Eagle Educational Academy and therefore no changes to his then current program and placement were recommended (PE-15; SE-5). Student’s Team would reconvene at the end of the extended evaluation to discuss the results and make the pertinent recommendations (PE-15; SE-5)
16. The N1 also indicated that Parents should have received a Notice of Procedural Safeguards on or about January 13, 2026 (PE-15; SE-5). At Hearing, both parents denied having received the Procedural Safeguards at any time during the 2025-2026 school year, but Melissa Brites, Interim Special Education Director in Pittsfield testified that the Procedural Safeguards had been provided in January 2025 and in September of 2025 (Brites).
17. Student was scheduled to participate in an extended evaluation at Eagle Educational Academy between January 19 and March 20, 2026 (PE-2; SE-5). Student was in attendance approximately fifty percent of the time (Brites).
18. On February 5, 2026, Student refused to return his personal phone which he was allowed to access during lunch time, even after he was prompted to do so (SE-7).
19. On February 6, 2026, Ryan Fuller, Principal at Eagle Educational Academy, notified Mother via email and first-class mail that Student would need to serve a ten or fewer days, in-school suspension (ISS) for “violating the electronics device policy and leaving the class without permission” (SE-6). Mr. Fuller further noted that other alternative remedies had been found to be unsuitable or counterproductive as Student had failed to respond to other restorative interventions. During the suspension, Student would have an opportunity to complete his assignments and make academic progress. Mr. Fuller invited Mother to a meeting on Monday February 9, 2026, to discuss Student’s “performance, behavior, engagement in school and possible future responses to this type of behavior” but Mother was unavailable, and never rescheduled (SE-6; Fuller). Mother testified that she never received the letter and that it was not uploaded to PowerSchool (Mother).
20. Parent and Mr. Fuller’s email communications between February 5 and 6, 2026, detail the disciplinary incident leading to a detention and suspension, and Mother’s complaint that Eagle failed to communicate Student’s behavior and lack of engagement with the program to her. The exchange includes Mr. Fuller’s explanation that,
[w]hen [he] spoke with Mr. Bradley he explained that [Student] was not on level because he did not get his points to maintain his level. The expectations for each class are reviewed daily and during advisory. He has been sleeping and not completing his work in class. Even when reminded that this would hurt his grades and his level he did not change what he was doing.
[Student] went into the room and took his phone and began to use it today. He was asked to put it back; he did not have permission. He refused until he was done using it. When he did put it back, he went to the cafe. He then walked out of there twice. His grades were reviewed during advisory and he walked out of that as well. Each of the last two days he also walked out to grab his phone before he was supposed to leave.
He did not serve his detention this afternoon. We reminded him and he told us he would not be doing it. He will have ISS Monday morning because he did not stay and for the events of today. This is in the policy that we have and the cell phone policy that was shared previously (PE-3; SE-7).
21. At Eagle, students typically serve detention and in-school suspensions on the same day as an incident occurs (Fuller).
22. Student left school without serving his detention on February 6, 2026, and he did not attend school on Monday February 9, 2026, the day he was supposed to serve his un-served detention from the prior week (Fuller). Upon returning to school on Tuesday, February 10, 2026, he served a three-hours, in-house suspension (PE-3; SE-7; Fuller). The suspension was served in a room with a one-to-one special education teacher. Student completed the standard course-work provided by his teachers, and afterwards met with his adjustment counselor, to process the incident before returning to his regularly scheduled classes (Fuller).
23. On Tuesday, February 24, 2026 (following the 2026 February school vacation week s) Ms. Weiner emailed Mother seeking to convene a MDR because Student had been out of the building over ten days. Mother responded that it was too late for a meeting as Student had already served the ISS and did not agree to meet with the Team (SE-8; Mother).
24. On March 3, 2026, Mr. Fuller informed Mother that Student had struggled to follow expectations; he missed class, interacted inappropriately with other students and teachers, was disrespectful and swore. As a result of this conduct, Student would have a detention the following day (PE-5; PE-6).
25. Student’s behavior continued to escalate on March 4, 2026, becoming more verbally aggressive and disrespectful to others and he hit another student on the arm. The need for him to serve a detention was discussed with him, but at the end of the day Student grabbed his phone and walked out of school without permission (PE-6). He did not return to school after that day, missed the last week of his extended evaluation, and never served his detention (Fuller).
26. When informed of the incident and the detention, Mother responded that Student would not be returning to Eagle, as he was a follower and had formed negative relationships in school.
27. During the extended evaluation, Student was absent nineteen times, only three of which were excused absences, and he had difficulty making the first period of the day (PE-8).
28. On March 16, 2026, Mother filed the instant Hearing Request, later amending it on April 1, 2026. The Amendment raised several claims including the one subject that is the subject of the instant Hearing. In her Amendment Mother states,
Suspension Without MDR: during the 2025 - 2026 school year, [Student’s] suspensions exceeded 10 days. During the evaluation period (Jan-Mar 2026 ) he was placed in in school suspension twice without a manifestation determination review (MDR). His mother was notified days after he was placed in ISS that an MDR should have occurred. As of March 31, 2026, no formal written notices, suspension letters, appeal information or MDR notifications were provided to either parent (Amended Hearing Request).
While Mother’s initial Hearing Request calls for “accountability” on the part of the District as a remedy, the remedies listed in her Amendment address other aspects of her Hearing Request not involving the ISS and MDR issues (Hearing Request and Amended Hearing Request).
29. Parents share joint custody of Student per a court decree (Father). Neither Mother’s Hearing Request nor the Amended Hearing Request lists Father as the second parent, nor did either provide any contact information for him. Father is only mentioned indirectly in Mother’s Amendment insofar as she alleges that neither parent received the necessary notices from Pittsfield.
30. Father testified that he was not notified via mail, telephone or email of Student’s exclusion in November of 2025. He was also not notified of the disciplinary action taken in February of 2026. He was not invited to the MDRs and never had communication with Ms. Brites, Mr. Fuller or Mr. Couture.
31. Father testified that he is employed in a public school in Massachusetts and that he is familiar with PowerSchool, which allows him access to Student’s information and ParentSquare, used to facilitate communication between parents and school systems. Despite knowing that parents can put information into PowerSchool and ParentSquare, he never updated his contact information with Pittsfield. Nevertheless, he was surprised to learn that the address Pittsfield had for him was the same as Mother’s. He further testified to having attended two or three IEP meetings since Student’s sophomore year (Father). Ms. Brites testified that Father had not attended any Team meetings or otherwise contacted Pittsfield during the 2025-2026 school year (Brites).
32. Pittsfield has used Mother’s address to mail correspondence intended for Mother and for Father (Brites).
33. Mother testified that while she received emails from Eagle staff, she did not receive any letters, noting that this had limited her ability to challenge Student’s suspensions. She also stated that she did not receive the Notice of Procedural Safeguards in conjunction with Student’s MDR in January of 2026 (Mother). Ms. Brites testified that she had chaired Student’s Team meeting in September of 2025, when the Team first proposed, and Mother rejected, that Student participate in an extended evaluation. Ms. Brites testified that the Notice of Procedural Safeguards had been forwarded to parents at that time, that the pertinent box reflecting so had been checked on the N1, and that a consent for evaluation form had also been included (Brites). Ms. Brites was not involved in the process regarding setting up the MDR to address Student’s November 2025 suspension.
34. Following filing of the instant Hearing Request, the District offered to remove the suspension from Student’s record, but this offer was not satisfactory to Mother (Mother).
LEGAL STANDARDS:
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires that all eligible disabled students receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE).[7] The IDEA further requires compliance with procedural safeguards designed to protect the rights of parents and students,[8] ensuring meaningful parental participation.[9] Massachusetts has adopted the IDEA, and specifically, the federal standards involving discipline of eligible students. (MGL c.71B and implementing regulations at 603 CMR.28 et seq.).
The IDEA prescribes the specific process school districts must follow when taking disciplinary action against an eligible student for violations of the school’s code of conduct. 20 USC § 1415 (k)(1)(B) and (C) provide that:
(B) Authority. School personnel under this subsection may remove a child with a disability who violates a code of student conduct from their current placement to an appropriate interim alternative educational setting, another setting, or suspension, for not more than 10 school days (to the extent such alternatives are applied to children without disabilities).
(C) Additional Authority. If school personnel seek to order a change in placement that would exceed 10 school days and the behavior that gave rise to the violation of the school code is determined not to be a manifestation of the child's disability pursuant to subparagraph (E), the relevant disciplinary procedures applicable to children without disabilities may be applied to the child in the same manner and for the same duration in which the procedures would be applied to children without disabilities, except as provided in section 612 A1 20 USCIS 1412 A1 although it may be provided in an interim alternative educational setting.[10]
Students who are removed from their educational school placement for more than 10 school days in a school year must be provided educational services. 20 USC § 1415 (k)(1)(D).[11]
Following disciplinary removals amounting to 10 school days, the school district must convene a meeting to conduct a manifestation determination review (MDR)[12] inclusive of parent, a representative from the school, “and relevant members of the child's IEP Team (as determined by the parent and the [school])”[13], prior to initiating any additional disciplinary action. Pursuant to 34 CFR 300.536 (e) the MDR Team must convene within 10 school days of any decision to change the placement of a student for disciplinary reasons.
At the MDR meeting, the participants must review “all relevant information in the student's file, including the child's IEP, any teacher observations, and any relevant information provided by the parents”[14] to ascertain:
(1) “if the conduct in question was caused by, or had a direct and substantial relationship to, the child's disability” or (2) “if the conduct in question was the direct result of the local education agency's failure to implement the IEP.”[15]
The answer to those questions determines the manner in which a student may be disciplined and the Team’s additional responsibilities.[16]
The IDEA further requires that the school district notify the parent before taking disciplinary action against the student. Parent must also be provided with procedural safeguards including the right to appeal the MDR determination. In Massachusetts, said appeal is made to the BSEA.[17]
Lastly, Students found eligible to receive special education services are not only entitled to the substantive components of a FAPE, but they are also entitled to the procedural protections of the IDEA. These safeguards are designed to support the parent-school collaboration envisioned by federal and state special education law. Procedural protections serve a dual purpose: to ensure that each eligible child receives a FAPE, and to provide for meaningful parental participation. 20 USC §1415(b)(3)(A) and (B).
LEGAL CONCLUSIONS:
The Parties agree that Student is entitled to special education services consistent with federal[18] and state [19] special education laws and regulations.
In the instant case, Mother, as the moving party, carries the burden of persuasion. As such, pursuant to Schaffer v. Weast, 126 S.Ct. 528 (2005), in order to prevail, she must prove her case by a preponderance of the evidence. In rendering my decision, I consider the evidence in the context of the above applicable legal standards and rely on and incorporate by reference the facts delineated in the Facts section of this Decision, focusing only on the most salient ones in the analysis below.
The evidence supports a finding that, as Pittsfield concedes, technical procedural violations occurred. However, as discussed below, I find that these violations did not result in a denial of FAPE to Student.
34 CFR 300.536 (e) requires that an MDR Team convene within 10 school days of any decision to change the placement of a student for disciplinary reasons. Mr. Fuller determined on February 6, 2026, that Student would need to serve an in-house suspension on February 9, 2026, and he notified Mother of this the same day via email and letter mailed via US regular postal service. Mr. Fuller further offered to meet with Mother on Monday February 9, 2026, prior to the suspension. Mother was unable to meet due to work responsibilities, and no other alternative was discussed. Student was absent from school on Monday February 9, 2026. He served his in-school suspension on February 10, 2026.
The week following Mr. Fuller’s disciplinary determination (February 16 to 20, 2026), was school vacation week. Ms. Weiner contacted Mother on February 24, 2026, attempting to hold an MDR within 10 school days of Mr. Fuller’s determination, but Mother declined to meet because the suspension had already taken place. It is clear, and Pittsfield so concedes, that the MDR did not take place before the suspension.
To prevail on a procedural violation claim, the fact finder must find that such violation (1) impeded the child’s right to a FAPE; (2) significantly impeded the parents’ opportunity to participate in the decision-making process; or (3) caused a deprivation of educational benefits. Doe ex rel. Doe v. Attleboro Public Schools, 960 F. Supp. 2d 295 (2013); see Roland M. 910 F.2d at 983. The IDEA requires that school districts give parents “written prior notice” whenever the district “proposes to initiate or change” or “refuses to initiate or change” the “identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child or the provision of a free, appropriate public education to the child”, and obtain informed parental consent[20] at various stages of the process including disciplinary action.
De minimis procedural errors do not automatically render an IEP legally defective and do not automatically constitute a violation of the IDEA. Gonzalez v. Puerto Rico Dep’t of Educ., 969 F. Supp. 801, 804 (D.P.R. 1997). In contrast, flagrant procedural violations that negatively impact a student’s or the IEP’s ability to adequately deliver an appropriate education are considered a denial of a student’s right to a FAPE. Id at 801.
Certain procedural errors alone may be an adequate basis for concluding that a school failed to provide FAPE,[21] such as failure to convene a Team meeting or propose a new IEP. These violations constitute a sufficiently significant procedural violation to result in a per se denial of FAPE even in the absence of demonstrable educational harm to the student. See C. D. v. Natick Pub. Sch. Dist., No. CV 19-12427, 2020 WL 7632260 (D. Mass. Dec. 22, 2020).
Additionally, significantly impeding the parents’ opportunity to participate in the decision-making process may constitute a basis to prevail on a procedural violation claim. Pursuant to the IDEA Parents have a right to meaningful participation in the process, and such meaningful participation is impeded where information central to a parent’s ability to provide informed consent is significantly compromised. In this context, the fact finder must consider the totality of the circumstances when rendering a determination that a procedural violation has impeded a parent from meaningfully participating in the special education process or has impacted a student’s right to a FAPE. Here, although as noted supra (and acknowledged by Pittsfield), it must be found that a technical procedural violation occurred, Student’s right to a FAPE was not impacted, as discussed below.
Student voluntarily entered the extended evaluation first recommended by the District in September of 2025, following a long-term suspension pursuant to 37H ½ and court intervention. The evaluation was intended to better understand his needs and the triggers of his maladaptive behavior so the Team could develop an IEP that better addressed his needs. Despite agreeing to participate in the extended evaluation and Mother consenting to his participation, Student attended only 50 percent of the days contemplated for same (Brites). He was minimally engaged on the days he attended (e.g., arriving late, putting his head down and sleeping in class, disregarding rules, and being disruptive, disrespectful, and showing aggression) and his conduct triggered detention and/ or suspension twice between January and March of 2026 (Fuller). Student displayed the precise behaviors that caused him to enter the extended evaluation at Eagle in the first place.
Student’s lack of engagement in the program and avoidance of the consequence of his conduct on the day he was supposed to serve after school detention resulted in a suspension days later. It is notable that Student received one-to-one support by a special education teacher and assistance of his adjustment counselor during the three-hours, in-house suspension served on February 10, 2026, and he would have had access to these same interventions during any subsequent suspension.
It is in this context that implementation of the IDEA requirement to hold an MDR within ten school days of the behavior requiring disciplinary intervention, and doing so prior to implementation of the disciplinary action must be analyzed.
In the instant case, implementation of a regulation requiring the Team to conduct an MDR before implementing an intervention, would moot the relevancy of appropriate therapeutic programming and interventions. The program at Eagle was intended not only to allow for a better understanding of Student’s triggers, and provide feedback on maladaptive behaviors, but also to process challenging situations, explore alternative responses and teach accountability. To this end, Eagle’s policy for all its students was to implement detentions and suspensions on the same date that the conduct warranting disciplinary action arose (Fuller). The program also ensured that students have access to their regular coursework and support during suspensions and required that students meet with their adjustment counselors before re-entering regularly scheduled classes. Student received all of this.
Moreover, Parent was made aware of the incidents before implementation of the suspension, and she was provided explanations and an opportunity to meet with Eagle’s principal prior to the suspension (Fuller). She declined. Later, when Ms. Brites contacted her within ten school days of the February 6, 2026, suspension determination to hold an MDR, she again declined.
Finally, the District offered and implemented prior to the Hearing the only available substantive remedy, that is, removing the disciplinary action from Student’s record.
I find that while the District technically violated the requirement of the federal regulation in not convening the MDR prior to implementing an additional suspension beyond ten school days, technically depriving Mother of her right to participate in a MDR prior to imposition of the suspension, this violation did not deny Student a FAPE Eagle attempted to address Student’s conduct effectively, provided appropriate services during the three-hour, in-house suspension, notified Parent via email of the suspension and offered to meet with her to discuss interventions prior to imposition of the suspension. Given the unique facts of this case, to fully endorse Mother’s position would be to hold form over substance.
I next turn to Mother’s general claim regarding failure to provide proper notice and procedural safeguards to Parents.
Mother is correct that pursuant to 34 CFR 300.504, Pittsfield was required to provide her a copy of the procedural safeguards in accordance with federal discipline procedures. While Pittsfield had provided Mother the procedural safeguards in January 2025 and September of 2025, the District was required to provide them again when they forwarded the N1 in January of 2026. The District would also need to include them in conjunction with any other MDR held thereafter. This procedural violation did not however, result in any harm to Mother or Student, given, as explained supra, that Student was not deprived of a FAPE and Mother was well aware of her right to request a hearing before the BSEA, having done so on multiple occasions since 2024, including in October of 2025 (BSEA # 2603909) as well as in filing the instant case.
I now address Mother’s claim regarding the District’s failure to notify or otherwise communicate with her and Father.
Regarding Mother, the email exchanges submitted as exhibits by both Mother and the District (delineated in the Facts section supra), persuasively contradict her assertion. The evidence is convincing that Mother received prior written notice of the suspension via email prior to imposition of the suspension, she also was mailed a letter via US postal service, and she did not object to the suspension itself; rather, her objection was only as to the MDR not being conducted prior to the suspension.
Regarding emails to Father, neither Mother’s Hearing Request nor the Amendment lists Father as a second parent, nor provides any contact information for him. During this school year, Father has not attended any of Student’s Team meetings or contacted Pittsfield (Brites). Similarly, despite being added to the email thread on November 19, 2025, Father did not respond to the emails or attend the MDR held in January of 2026. The record shows that neither Mother or the District included him in the email communications between Eagle and Mother while Student attended said program. Given Father’s testimony that he and Mother share joint custody of Student, he must be included in all email communications between Mother and the District, including Eagle. Any procedural failure in this regard is one that is shared by Mother and Pittsfield.
With respect to the issue of mailings, during cross-examination, Father conceded that he had not updated his address, that despite being employed in a public school in Massachusetts, having familiarity with PowerSchool and ParentSquare and knowing how to access the systems, he never updated his contact information with Pittsfield, and was unaware that the address listed for him in the system is that of Mother. . Lacking the updated information, the District continued forwarding correspondence intended for him to his previous address with Mother. As such, Father’s failure to receive mailings from Pittsfield cannot be attributed to the District, but rather, to Father’s failure to update his personal information with the District, Mother’s failure to include contact information regarding a second parent on her Hearing Request/ Amendment, and her failure to inform Pittsfield that information intended for Father was received at her domicile.
Mother has also not persuasively demonstrated that she has not received any mailings from Pittsfield during the entirety of this year, or for that matter, ever before. In this regard her statements are not credible. Pittsfield fulfilled its responsibility by mailing correspondence addressed to Mother and to Father at Mother’s address, the only address on record for both individuals.
To avoid any future misunderstandings, Father should update his contact information with Pittsfield. Once Father’s updated contact is received, Pittsfield is ordered to include Father as well as Mother in all communications involving Student.[22]
Pittsfield is also ordered to review procedural mandates regarding disciplinary action with its staff. As a result of the District’s proactive action in removing the February 2026 suspension from Student’s record, and the finding that Student was not denied a FAPE, no other appropriate remedy is available or warranted. As such, I find that Mother partially met her burden of persuasion.
ORDER:
1. Pittsfield is ordered to review procedural mandates regarding disciplinary action with its staff.
2. Pittsfield is ordered to include Father in all communications regarding Student going forward.
By the Hearing Officer,
Rosa I. Figueroa
Dated: April 17, 2026
Footnotes
[1] The second Re-Calculated Notice of Hearing scheduled the non-expedited claims under the standard track applicable to Parent initiated Hearing Requests.
[2] The remainder of Mother’s requested relief involves claims to be addressed at a later proceeding.
[3] Ms. Llende is the School Discipline Advocacy Program Law Clerk at Mental Health Advocacy Program for Kids (MHAP), Health Law Advocates.
[4] A separate Hearing was also pending before the BSEA at this time (# 2603909). There have been five BSEA hearings initiated by Parent and the District between March of 2024 and March of 2026, to wit: BSEA #s 2410203, #250576, #2603711, #2603909 and #2610342 (Administrative Notice of the Parties’ Hearing Requests; SE-3).
[5] Parent was not available on January 14, 2026, owing to previous work-related commitments (SE-4).
[6] The record is unclear as to the date of the Superintendent’s Hearing, but according to Mother it was sometime in December of 2025.
[7] USC §1400 (D)(1)(A).
[8] USC §1415 (f)(3)(E)(ii); 34 CFR 300.513 (a)(2).
[9] See Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley , 102 S.Ct. 3034, 3050 (1982).
[10] See 34 CFR 300.530 et seq..
[11] See 34 CFR 300.530(b)(2) and (d)(1)-(5).
[12] U.S.C. §1415(k)(1)(E) and 34 CFR 300.530(e).
[13] U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(E)(i); 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(e)(1).
[14] U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(E)(i); 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(e)(1).
[15] U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(E)(i)(I)–(II); 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(e)(1)(i)–(ii).
[16] See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(C); 20 U.S.C. §1415(k)(1)(F)(i) and (ii); and 20 U.S.C. §1415(k)(1)(F)(iiii). See also, 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(c) and 34 CFR § 300.530(g).
[17] See 20 U.S.C. §1415(k)(1)(H).
[18] USC 1400 et seq .
[19] MGL c. 71B.
[20] See 34 CFR §300.9 defining consent as: (a) The parent has been fully informed of all information relevant to the activity for which consent is sought..., (b) The parent understands and agrees in writing to the carrying out of the activity for which his or her consent is sought, and the consent describes that activity, (c) The parent understands that the granting of consent is voluntary … and may be revoked at any time. If the aforementioned requirements are not met, then there can be no presumption that a parent’s consent has been informed and thus, the consent is not valid. This would constitute a procedural violation.
[21] Id . at 811.
[22] This Decision is being mailed to Father and Mother at Mother’s address as neither Mother nor Father have provided his contact information to the BSEA. Mother is requested to provide Father the Decision. The BSEA will also make another copy of this Decision available to Father upon receipt of his valid contact information.