COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Student v. Stoneham Public Schools
BSEA # 26-10932
RULING ON STONEHAM PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
On March 25, 2025 the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) received a Hearing Request filed by Parents[1], who are pro se, against Stoneham Public Schools (Stoneham or the District). It alleged that Stoneham violated Student’s rights to a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by “[m]aintaining the Student in a classroom environment causing emotional distress and fear; [r]efusing a reasonable classroom reassignment within the same school; [c]onducting evaluations while the Student was emotionally dysregulated and unable to access learning; [f]ailing to investigate or respond to documented safety concerns; [and a]ttempting to move the Student to a substantially separate placement without parental agreement while stay-put protections apply.” According to Parents, Student “has been unable to attend school since January 21, 2026 due to emotional harm associated with the current classroom placement.” Parents requested the following:
“Interim Immediate Relief:
1. Immediate temporary placement in a different general education classroom within the same elementary school.
2. Assignment to a different classroom teacher pending resolution.
3. Implementation of supports necessary for safe participation.
4. Suspension of any placement change to a substantially separate program during stay-put.
5. Immediate plan for the Student's return to school.
Final Relief:
[1.] Determination that the District denied FAPE.
[2.] Compensatory education services for missed instruction.
[3.] Review of evaluations conducted during periods of emotional distress.
[4.] Any additional relief deemed appropriate.”[2]
On April 6, 2026, Stoneham Public Schools filed its Response and Partial Motion to Dismiss(hereinafter, Partial Motion to Dismiss), asserting that the majority of Parents' claims for relief must be dismissed as a matter of law. Specifically, Stoneham agreed that the BSEA has jurisdiction to determine whether the District provided Student with a FAPE with respect to the implementation of his IEP and compliance with the substantive and procedural requirements of IDEA. However, the district argued that Parents' remaining claims do not fall under the BSEA's limited jurisdiction to hear issues relating to special education. Accordingly, Stoneham contends that issues #1, #2, and #4 should be dismissed by the Hearing Officer as a matter of law, as said allegations, although fashioned here as a denial of FAPE, make no connection to Student’s IEP or services. Moreover, decisions regarding specific classroom or teacher assignments are administrative in nature and not Team placement determinations under the IDEA.
On April 11, 2026, Parents filed Parents’ Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, arguing that all claims fall squarely within the jurisdiction of the BSEA because they directly concern Student’s access to special education and entitlement to a FAPE. Parents assert that disputes regarding classroom placement, the appropriateness of evaluations, unaddressed safety concerns, and alleged violations of stay-put protections are core IDEA matters that the BSEA is authorized to decide. Parents further argue that, at the motion to dismiss stage, all allegations must be accepted as true and dismissal is only appropriate if the claims could not constitute an IDEA violation. Here, the claims involve educational placement, evaluation procedures, and implementation of special education protections, and therefore must proceed to hearing. Parents also contend that the District relied heavily on a brief neuropsychological evaluation diagnosing autism to justify a substantially separate placement. Parents maintain that the District did not provide sufficient supplementary aids and services and effectively predetermined a more restrictive placement.
Because neither party requested a hearing on the Partial Motion to Dismiss, and neither testimony nor oral argument would advance the Hearing Officer's understanding of the issues involved, this Ruling is issued without a hearing, pursuant to Bureau of Special Education Appeals Hearing Rule VI(C).
RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:[3]
1. Student is a kindergarten student and resident of Stoneham, Massachusetts. She is eligible for special education services under an Individualized Education Program (IEP) pursuant to a Communications Disability Category[4].
2. Student entered kindergarten during the 2025-2026 school year with a stay-put IEP from preschool, which provided for services in an integrated setting. She attended school willingly and accessed instruction.
3. Beginning in October 2025, the District initiated reevaluations to determine continued eligibility and placement.
4. Beginning in November 2025, Parent[5] observed “increasing fearful and avoidant behavior” by Student toward the student's “primary classroom teacher.” Specifically, Student demonstrated “visible fear when encountering the teacher, attempts to avoid interaction, [and] emotional tension not present with other adults. This behavior occurred only in relation to this classroom teacher and not with other school staff or outside environments.”
5. In December 2025, Parent observed Student in class sitting “alone” away from peers. According to Parent, Student’s teacher explained that “the separation was due to the Student's disability, despite the Student demonstrating ability to participate with peers during observed activities.”
6. Subsequently, Parent verbally requested consideration of a classroom reassignment within the same school. Parent was informed that “reassignment was not possible due to classroom capacity, which the Parent later learned was inaccurate.”
7. According to Parent, when the primary teacher was absent, Student's ABA technician reported that “Student had successful and positive school days.”
8. On or about January 20, 2026, during morning arrival, Student “entered the classroom calmly” but, upon seeing the classroom teacher, “ran in visible fear and fell to the floor.”
9. On or about January 21, 2026, Parent met with the Principal and school BCBA and requested “an investigation of the incident, immediate classroom reassignment within the school, [and] an emotionally safe learning environment.” The Principal refused to consider a classroom change, stating that Student should attend a substantially separate program. No investigation occurred, and Student has been “unable to attend school since January 21, 2026.”
10. Parent met with the Special Education Director and Superintendent, who, according to Parent, continued to refuse to address classroom safety concerns.
11. According to Parent, the District pressured Parent to accept placement in a substantially separate program.
12. Parent filed a disability discrimination complaint with the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, which remains pending.
LEGAL STANDARDS AND APPLICATION OF LEGAL STANDARDS:
In applying the legal standards set out infra, I bear in mind that complaints filed by pro se parties, as in the instant matter, are to be construed liberally.[6] As explained by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, “[t]he policy behind affording pro se plaintiffs liberal interpretation is that if they present sufficient facts [to state a claim], the Court may intuit the correct cause of action, even if it was imperfectly pled.”[7] This principle aligns with “[o]ur judicial system[, which] zealously guards the attempts of pro se litigants on their own behalf” while not ignoring the need for compliance with procedural and substantive law.[8]
LEGAL STANDARDS:
MOTION TO DISMISS
Pursuant to Hearing Rule XVI(A) and (B) and 801 CMR 1.01(7)(g)(3)[9], a hearing officer may allow a motion to dismiss if the party requesting the hearing fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. These rules are analogous to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As such, hearing officers have generally used the same standards as the courts in deciding motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. To survive a motion to dismiss, there must exist “factual ‘allegations plausibly suggesting (not merely consistent with)’ an entitlement to relief.”[10] The hearing officer must take as true “the allegations of the complaint, as well as such inferences as may be drawn therefrom in the plaintiff’s favor.”[11] These “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”[12]
JURISDICTION OF THE BSEA
20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6) grants the BSEA jurisdiction over timely complaints filed by a parent/guardian or a school district "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."[13] In Massachusetts, a parent or a school district, "may request mediation and/or a hearing at any time on any matter[14] concerning the eligibility, evaluation, placement, IEP, provision of special education in accordance with state and federal law, or procedural protections of state and federal law for students with disabilities."[15] Nevertheless, it is well established that matters that come before the BSEA must involve a live or current dispute between the Parties.[16] In addition, the BSEA "can only grant relief that is authorized by these statutes and regulations, which generally encompasses orders for changed or additional services, specific placements, additional evaluations, reimbursement for services obtained privately by parents or compensatory services."[17]
BSEA jurisdiction extends to IDEA-based claims as well as claims of direct violations protected by the IDEA.[18] The First Circuit held, in a case addressing exhaustion of claims filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that the BSEA is not deprived of jurisdiction by the fact that certain claims are not based directly upon violations of the IDEA, nor by the fact that the relief a complainant seeks cannot be awarded by the agency. The IDEA’s exhaustion requirement ensures that the BSEA is able to develop a factual record and apply its “specialized knowledge” in an IDEA-based claim.[19] The IDEA’s exhaustion requirement “applies even when the suit is brought pursuant to a different statute so long as the party is seeking relief that is available under subchapter II of IDEA.”[20] However, in Fry v. Napolean Community Schools, 137 S.Ct. 743, 752 (2017), the U.S. Supreme Court held that “exhaustion is not necessary when the gravamen of the plaintiff’s suit is something other than the denial of the IDEA’s core guarantee – what the Act calls a ‘free appropriate public education.’” Whether a claim is IDEA-based turns on whether the underlying claim is one of violation of the IDEA, or “where there are no factual allegations to indicate that a dispute exists concerning the individual student’s eligibility under the IDEA or Section 504 or the discharge of the School’s procedural and substantive responsibilities under the IDEA or [Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973].”[21]
APPLICATION OF LEGAL STANDARDS
Not every alleged wrong imposed on a student eligible under the IDEA or Section 504 is actionable before the BSEA[22], 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. [23] However, where such allegations are framed as contributing to a denial of a FAPE, the BSEA may properly exercise jurisdiction. In the instant matter, Stoneham argues that Parents’ allegation that Stoneham denied Student a FAPE based on Stoneham's denial of a change to his kindergarten classroom (i.e., issue # 2), asserts a claim beyond the purview of the BSEA. The District’s argument is persuasive. Here, as Parents have not alleged that the teacher at issue lacked the education, experience or expertise necessary to work with Student,[24] and as I have no authority over general education classroom placement decisions, such as the one Parents ask me to review,[25] the Motion to Dismiss is ALLOWED as to issue # 2. As such, issue # 2 is hereby dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
However, Parents allege that the classroom environment caused Student emotional distress and fear, thereby interfering with her ability to access educational services. At the motion to dismiss stage, taking as true “the allegations of the complaint, as well as such inferences as may be drawn therefrom in [Parents’] favor,”[26] as well as interpreting the complaint liberally in light of Parents’ pro se status, I find that these allegations are sufficient to state a plausible claim for denial of FAPE. As such, the Partial Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as to issues #1 and 4 (that is, claims relating to denial of a FAPE by maintaining the Student in a classroom causing emotional distress and fear and claims relating to denial of a FAPE by failing to investigate or respond to documented safety concerns).
ORDER:
The District’s Partial Motion to Dismiss is DENIED, in part, and ALLOWED, in part. Specifically, the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as to issues #1 and 4 (that is, claims relating to denial of a FAPE by maintaining the Student in a classroom causing emotional distress and fear and claims relating to denial of a FAPE by failing to investigate or respond to documented safety concerns). The Partial Motion to Dismiss is ALLOWED as to issue # 2 (Parents’ claim alleging a denial of a FAPE resulting from the District’s refusal of a classroom reassignment), and such claim is hereby dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
By the Hearing Officer:
/s/ Alina Kantor Nir
Alina Kantor Nir
Dated: April 14, 2026
Footnotes
[1] Parents requested that the matter be granted expedited status. On March 25, 2026, the matter was found not to meet the standard for expedited hearing.
[2] For the purpose of this Ruling, Parents’ claims are identified as follows: Issue 1: Denial of a FAPE by maintaining the Student in a classroom causing emotional distress and fear; Issue 2: Denial of a FAPE by refusing a reasonable classroom reassignment within the same school; Issue 3: Denial of a FAPE by conducting evaluations while the student was emotionally dysregulated and unable to access learning; Issue 4: Denial of a FAPE by failing to investigate or respond to documented safety concerns; and Issue 5: Denial of a FAPE by attempting to move Student to a substantially separate placement without parental agreement.
[3] The following facts are derived from the pleadings and are subject to change in subsequent rulings or decision. I take those facts pled by Parents as true for purposes of the District’s Motion to Dismiss, as well as any inferences that may be drawn therefrom. See Blank v. Chelmsford Ob/Gyn, P.C., 420 Mass. 404, 407 (1995).
[4] According to the District, Student has also been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Developmental Global Delay.
[5] References to Parent in this Ruling are to Student’s mother.
[6] See Ahmed v. Rosenblatt, 118 F.3d 886, 890 (1st Cir. 1997).
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] Hearing Officers are bound by the BSEA Hearing Rules and the Standard Rules of Adjudicatory Practice and Procedure, 801 Code Mass Regs 1.01.
[10] Iannocchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623, 636 (2008) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007)).
[11] Blank, 420 Mass. at 407.
[12] Golchin v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 460 Mass. 222, 223 (2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
[13] See 34 C.F.R. §300.507(a)(1).
[14] Limited exceptions exist that are not here applicable.
[15] 603 CMR 28.08(3)(a).
[16] See In Re: Student v. Bay Path Reg'l Vocational Tech. High Sch., BSEA #1805746 (Figueroa, 2018).
[17] In Re: Georgetown Pub. Sch., BSEA # 1405352 (Berman, 2014).
[18] See Frazier v. Fairhaven Sch. Comm., 276 F.3d 52, 59, 64 (1st Cir. 2002).
[19] Id. at 60.
[20] Rose v. Yeaw, 214 F.3d 206, 210 (1st Cir. 2000).
[21] In Re Xylia, BSEA # 12-0781 (Byrne 2012); see Diaz-Fonseca v. Puerto Rico, 451 F.3d 13, 29 (2006).
[22] 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).
[23] See In Re: P.J. & Arlington Public Schools (Ruling On The District’s Motion To Dismiss), BSEA # 25-03415 (Mitchell, 2024); see also In Re: Student v. Ashland Public Schools (Corrected Ruling On Ashland Public Schools’ Motion To Dismiss/Motion For Summary Judgment And Ashland Public Schools’ Supplemental Motion To Dismiss), BSEA # 26-05771 (Kantor Nir, 2026)(dismissing claims challenging Student’s residency status as “residency determinations are not themselves special education matters under IDEA, Section 504 or Massachusetts special education law; rather, they are administrative determinations typically made at the district level. As they apply to all students regardless of disability status, they are not subject to review by the BSEA”).
[24] See In Re: Norton Public Schools, BSEA # 1609348 (Berman, 2017) (“Within the basic framework of an IEP, schools have considerable professional discretion and flexibility in how they fulfill their responsibilities. Thus, for example, schools generally have discretion over such items as classroom placement, staff assignments, and methodologies”); see also In Re: Westfield Public Schools, BSEA# 2401035 (Mitchell, 2023) (typically, general education decisions are outside the jurisdiction of the BSEA); In Re: Dennis-Yarmouth Regional School District, BSEA # 03-4447 (Putney-Yaceshyn, 2004) (schools generally have discretion over such items as classroom placement, staff assignments, and methodologies, as long as the goals and objectives of the IEP can be met and the student can make effective progress); In Re: Pentucket Regional School District (Ruling On Pentucket Regional School District's Partial Motion To Dismiss), BSEA # 10-6783 (Berman, 2010)(“It is well-established that schools, and not parents, have the discretion to assign disabled students to particular classrooms (including general education classrooms) so long as the IEP of a child with disabilities can be implemented in the chosen classroom”).
[25] 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”).
[26] Blank , 420 Mass. at 407.