COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Student v. Boston Public Schools
BSEA # 2611820
RULING ON BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PARENT’S HEARING REQUEST
On April 9, 2026, Student filed a Hearing Request in the above-referenced matter. In her Hearing Request, Student alleges that,
“The district's failure to provide complete and accurate educational records, including a graduation audit, constitutes a violation of the Individuals with disabilities Education Act IDEA, 20 USC 1400 et seq., and Massachusetts Student Records Regulations, 603 CMR 23.00, both of which require timely access to educational records and transparency in educational decision making.
The request sought expedited status track[1] alleging “immediate and irreparable harm” as a result of any administrative delay which could impact Student’s ability to graduate. Additionally, Student sought,
-[An]order for the immediate production of the official graduation audit and credit summary;
-[An] order for the removal of the additional elective course currently assigned to [Student], as she has satisfied all elective requirements, and permit her to graduate based upon her earned credits and successful completion of required coursework;
-[An] order [for] the District to cease imposing unsupported or undocumented graduation requirements and base [Student’s] graduation eligibility solely upon verified academic records and established requirements.
On April 9, 2026, Boston filed a Response to Hearing Request and Motion to Dismiss (Motion), conceding that Student is eligible to receive special education services consistent with an accepted IEP (for the period from December 3, 2025 to December 2, 2026); noting that Student’s Hearing Request does not allege deficiencies in the IEP, a denial of FAPE or failure to implement the IEP; and asserting that the issues raised by Student in her Hearing Request fall outside the jurisdictional reach of the BSEA because they involve general education and thus Student failed to state a claim for which the BSEA may grant relief.[2]
Student filed a Response to Boston’s Motion (Response) on April 17, 2026, expanding on her Hearing Request, explaining for the first time that Student’s anxiety limits her ability to access the curriculum and that Boston failed to consider the appropriateness of the elective (at the center of the instant dispute) in light of Student’s disability. Student argues that contrary to Boston’s assertion that the issue is one involving general education, the present dispute involves Student’s ability to access educational services as a result of her disability.
…the issue presented is whether the District is requiring a Student with a disability to complete a course that is not appropriately aligned with her disability-related needs, thereby denying her meaningful access to her education.
The consequence of this denial is the potential loss of the opportunity to graduate, but the underlying issue remains a denial of FAPE.
Student therefore argues that dismissal is inappropriate at this stage.
As neither party requested a hearing on this Motion, and as a hearing would not provide additional information necessary for me to reach a determination, this Ruling is issued based solely on the parties’ written submissions.
FACTS RELATIVE TO MOTION TO DISMISS:
The following factual allegations are derived from the Student’s Hearing Request, as clarified by and elaborated in her Response to the District’s Motion to Dismiss, and are presumed to be true for purposes of this Ruling, only.
1. Student is an 18-year-old resident of Boston who is currently a senior at Brighton High School.
2. She is IDEA eligible for special education under the category of “Other Health Impairment” due to anxiety, and receives services consistent with an accepted IEP. The IEP notes that Student’s disability impacts her ability to regulate her emotions, manage tasks, and access the general education curriculum, limiting her ability to participate in her educational programming. She requires accommodations, including flexibility in attendance and workload.
3. Student’s official transcript reflects that she is on course to satisfy all core academic courses required for graduation, and Boston agrees that she is on track to graduate in June 2026.
4. Student asserts that she has also fulfilled all the required elective credits necessary for graduation. However, according to Boston, attendance and tardiness related issues are placing her in jeopardy of failing one of her required elective courses (Fitness and Conditioning). Student must pass this elective course in order to graduate with her class in June of 2026.
5. Despite having knowledge of Student’s disability, Boston failed to consider the appropriateness of the course in light of Student’s disability, failed to provide modifications or alternative access consistent with her IEP, continued to require participation in a setting that triggered Student’s disability, and conditioned graduation on successful completion of that course.
6. On or about 2025, Parent and Boston executed a mediation agreement relative to the District’s representation that Student needed to complete additional elective credits to graduate.
7. Later, upon her review of the official transcript and documentation from her IEP process, Student concluded that no additional elective credits are required for graduation.
8. According to Student, Boston and the high school principal have imposed an additional elective requirement, which requirement has to be fulfilled or she will not be allowed to walk across the stage at graduation, despite her passing the required academic courses.
9. This is not an isolated incident as upon enrollment at Brighton High School in 2024, the high school principal imposed “additional academic barriers and requirements that are inconsistent with [Student’s] official academic record.”
10. The family has filed numerous PRS complaints regarding the consistent imposition of unsupported academic graduation requirements.
11. Notwithstanding repeated requests, to date, Student has not received a response to her request for the District to produce a “graduation audit or credit summary reflecting credits earned, credits required and credits remaining”.
LEGAL STANDARDS:
A. Motion to Dismiss:
The BSEA may dismiss a claim if it lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the hearing request. Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals (Hearing Rules),Rule XVI.B; Standard Adjudicatory Rules of Practice and Procedure, 801 CMR 1.01(7)(g)(3). These provisions are analogous to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal and Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure.[3]
In determining whether to dismiss a claim, a hearing officer must consider as true all facts alleged by the party opposing dismissal, in this case, Parent. The hearing officer may not dismiss the case if the facts alleged, if proven, would entitle the non-moving party to relief that the BSEA has authority to grant. Caleron-Ortiz v. LaBoy-Alvarado, 300 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2002); Ocasio-Hernandez v. Fortunato-Burset, 640 F.3d. 1 (1st Cir. 2011). A motion to dismiss will be denied if “accepting as true well-pleaded factual averments and indulging all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor…recovery can be justified under any applicable legal theory.” See Calderon-Ortiz, supra. The factual allegations must be sufficient to “raise a right to relief above a speculative level on the assumption that the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact.)” Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 555 (2007).
The entire case may be dismissed only if the hearing officer cannot grant any relief under federal[4] or state[5] special education statutes, or applicable portions of §504 of the Rehabilitation Act.[6] See Calderon-Ortiz, supra; Whitinsville Plaza Inc. v. Kotseas, 378 Mass. 85, 89 (1979); Nader v. Citron, 372 Mass. 96, 98 (1977); Norfolk County Agricultural School, 45 IDELR, 26 (2005). Conversely, if the opposing party’s allegations raise the plausibility of a viable claim that may give rise to some form of relief cognizable under any one or more of these statutory provisions, the matter should not be dismissed. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1948 (2009). Individual claims must be dismissed, however, if they do not arise under the statutes referenced above.
B. Jurisdiction of the BSEA:
Unlike a court with general jurisdiction, the BSEA may consider only those claims for which enabling statutes and regulations expressly grant authority. See Globe Newspaper Co. v. Beacon Hill Architectural Comm., 421 Mass. 570 (1996). Thus, MGL c. 71B§2A, the Massachusetts enabling statute for the BSEA, limits the Bureau’s jurisdiction to:
[Resolution of] disputes between and among parents, school districts, private schools and state agencies concerning (i) any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, education program or educational placement of a child with a disability or the provision of a free and appropriate public education to the child arising under this chapter and regulations promulgated hereunder or under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act…and its regulations; or (ii) a student’s rights under Section 504 or its regulations.
The state special education regulations implementing MGL c. 71B, at 603 CMR 28.08, track the applicable statutory language.[7] 603 CMR 28.08(3)(a) explicitly provides that:
A parent or a school district…may request mediation and/or a hearing at any time on any matter 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. A parent of a student with a disability may also request a hearing on any issue involving the denial of the free appropriate public education guaranteed by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as set forth in 34 CFR §§104.31-104.39.
Thus, consistent with 603 CMR 28.08(3)(a) the BSEA has jurisdictional authority over federal and state special education statutes and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.[8]
Lastly, the BSEA’s jurisdiction is limited to claims involving the particular student before it and not claims involving violation of rights applicable to several or all students in a district, whether or not they have disabilities. The BSEA would not have jurisdiction over systemic claims and the like, unless the claimant alleged that the violation deprived the particular disabled student of a FAPE. See In Re: Stoneham, supra.
Notwithstanding the above, dismissal of a due process claim must be approached with caution, when the party opposing dismissal is appearing pro se.[9]
If the allegations in the complaint of the party opposing dismissal raise the plausibility of a viable claim giving rise to some form of relief consistent with the IDEA or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Acts of 1973, the matter may not be dismissed. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).
Furthermore, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (offering guidance to BSEA Hearing Officers when deciding Motions to Dismiss) provide that pleadings must provide fair notice to the opposing party of the nature of the dispute.[10]
DISCUSSION AND APPLICATION OF LEGAL STANDARDS:
Relying on Rule XVI. B.1 of the Hearing Rules, Boston seeks dismissal of Student’s case, asserting that the issues raised by Student in her Hearing Request fall outside the jurisdictional authority of the BSEA and as such, the BSEA cannot grant the requested relief.
Boston notes that Student’s Hearing Request “vaguely refers to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq., and to the Massachusetts Student Record Regulations at 603 CMR 23.00 et seq.” but the request fails to raise any claims that Student “has been denied FAPE in relation to student records or anything else.”
Boston further argues that Student’s Hearing Request is equally vague, regarding the claim that Boston’s “refusal to provide accurate graduation information and its continued imposition of unsupported requirements directly interfere with [Student’s] ability to graduate”, concluding that this action amounts to a denial of FAPE without providing anything else relative to the alleged FAPE denial.
Moreover, it does not make clear how a general education elective course requirement (not waived consistent with an IEP or Section 504 plan) can be set aside by the BSEA.
Boston denies having violated any student record laws or regulations. The District further asserts that Student remains eligible to graduate, notwithstanding that attendance and tardiness related issues are placing her in jeopardy of failing one of her required elective courses, a course Student must pass to graduate with her class in June of 2026. Lastly, Boston asserts that the alleged student records violation has nothing to do with the remaining credit requirements necessary for Student to graduate.
The District asserts that because Student failed to articulate any FAPE related claims in the Hearing Request, the BSEA’s lacks authority to grant any relief related to alleged student record violations or local graduation requirements and thus seeks dismissal of the case.
Student asserts that dismissal is premature because she presents with a health impairment, anxiety, for which she receives special education services and accommodations consistent with her IEP. She argues that Boston is requiring her to pass an elective in order to graduate without having considered the appropriateness of the elective in light of her disability. Moreover, Boston failed to provide modifications or alternative access consistent with her IEP, while requiring Student’s participation in a setting that triggered her disability. In so doing, the District conditioned graduation upon completion of said course, thereby potentially denying her the opportunity to graduate.
Considering only the allegations in the Hearing Request, as clarified by Student’s Response, and taking them as true as I must, for purposes of the instant analysis, I conclude that Student’s Hearing Request fails to state a claim falling within the jurisdiction of the BSEA with respect to allegations involving student records violations, as well as general graduation requirements and award of diplomas. Similarly, Student’s Hearing Request fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted as it is vague and does not set out FAPE violations. The Hearing Request asks for the BSEA to grant relief falling outside the jurisdiction of the BSEA. As such, Boston’s Motion to Dismiss is ALLOWED. My reasoning follows.
While Student is an IDEA eligible student, her Hearing Request does not involve the IDEA, but rather alleged violations of provisions governing student records consistent with 603 CMR 23.00, as well as district-wide local graduation requirements[11] applicable to all students whether IDEA eligible or not. Neither of the aforementioned claims falls within the jurisdictional authority of the BSEA.
Moreover, the Hearing Request fails to articulate any violations of Student’s right to FAPE under the IDEA or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, over which the BSEA may exert its jurisdictional authority as delineated supra. For example, the Hearing Request does not contest evaluations, does not challenge the appropriateness of an IEP and/ or placement, does not allege a failure to deliver accepted services, and does not claim that the District committed procedural violations that resulted in a denial of FAPE. Previous BSEA rulings have held that the BSEA is not the proper forum to assert student record law related claims, finding that non-FAPE based educational record claims are subject to dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.[12] Similarly, the BSEA may not interfere with a school district’s authority to determine general graduation requirements or general decisions involving issuance of a diploma where no FAPE based claims are articulated.
As such, taking as true the allegations in Student’s Hearing Request and viewing them in the light most favorable to her, as I am required to do in the context of a motion to dismiss, I find that Student’s Hearing Request lacks factual allegations raising a right to relief that falls within the jurisdiction of the BSEA regarding student records laws/ regulations, and District wide graduation and diploma requirements.
Boston’s Motion to Dismiss Student’s Hearing Request is therefore ALLOWED. consistent with the analysis supra. This matter is Dismissed with Prejudice as to claims involving student records violations and District wide graduation and diploma requirements.
So Ordered by the Hearing Officer,
Rosa I. Figueroa
Rosa I. Figueroa
Dated: May 1, 2026
Footnotes
[1] The request to place the matter on an expedited track was denied on April 9, 2026, as the Hearing Request did not meet the standards for an expedited hearing consistent with the IDEA, 20 USC § 1415, or Rule II.C of the Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals.
[2] See e.g., In Re: Student v. Marshfield Public Schools, Ruling on Marshfield Public Schools Motion to Dismiss/ Motion for Summary Judgment, BSEA # 2209242(Kantor Nir, May 13, 2022) (dismissing FERPA violation claims); see also Rule XVI. B.1 of the Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals, granting BSEA hearing officer’s authority to dismiss claims for lack of jurisdiction).
[3] While not directly applicable to proceedings before the BSEA, hearing officers look to the Federal and Massachusetts Rules for guidance when considering motions to dismiss.
[4] Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et. seq
[5] M.G.L. 71B
[6] 29 U.S.C. §794
[7] The above-referenced Massachusetts statute and regulations are consistent with the pertinent federal provisions. The IDEA at 20 USC §1415(B)(6), and corresponding regulations at 34 CFR §§300.500-517, also permit parents and/or school districts to request mediations and/or due process hearings “relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of a child with a disability or the provision of FAPE to the child.” 34 CFR §300.507(a)(1).
[8] See Rulings on Motions to Dismiss in Noel & Holyoke Public Schools, BSEA No. 1606558 (Byrne, August 29, 2016); Oriel & Holyoke Public Schools, BSEA No. 1606711 (Byrne, August 29, 2016); and cases cited in both rulings, including In Re: Springfield Public Schools & Xylia, 18 MSER 373 (Byrne, 2012); In Re: Student v. Chicopee Public Schools & DESE, 23 MSER 1 (Berman, 2017); in re: Springfield Public Schools, BSEA NO. 2203555 (Berman 2022); In Re: Student v. Stoneham Public Schools, Ruling on Stoneham Public Schools’ Partial Motion to Dismiss, BSEA No. 2610932 (Kantor Nir, April 2026)
[9] See generally Ahmed v. Rosenblatt, 118 F.3d 886 (1st Cir. 1997), suggesting that a pro se parent’s complaint must be construed liberally.
[10] As explained in Leatherman v. Tarrant County NICU, 507 U.S. 163, 168 (1993), “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a claimant to set out in detail the facts upon which he bases his claim. To the contrary, all the Rules require is ‘a short and plain statement of the claim’ that will give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”
[11] See In Re: Giovanni[1], Ruling on Smith Vocational []’s Partial Motion to Dismiss & Motion for Summary Judgment, BSEA # 2604220 (Reichbach, January 22, 2026)(allowing a partial motion to dismiss where the parent requested an order requiring the district to develop a “realistic plan” for student to graduate as the request was too vague and not within the jurisdictional authority of the BSEA).
[12] See In Re: Student v. Marshfield Public Schools, Ruling on Marshfield Public Schools Motion to Dismiss/ Motion for Summary Judgment, BSEA # 2209242 (Kantor Nir, May 13, 2022).