COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
Student v. Smith Vocational and Agricultural High School
BSEA # 2612728
DECISION
This decision is issued pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 USC § 1400 et seq.), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 USC § 794), the state special education law (MGL ch. 71B), the state Administrative Procedure Act (MGL ch. 30A), and the regulations promulgated under these statutes.
RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Parents filed a Request for Hearing on April 27, 2026 and the Hearing was scheduled on an expedited track for May 12, 2026. The Hearing proceeded on the scheduled date and the record closed at that time.
Those present for all or part of the hearing were:
Student
Mother
Father
Jane Riley School Psychologist, Smith Vocational and Agricultural High School (Smith)
Rebecca Wanczyk Special Education Director, Smith
Ethan Percy Assistant Principal Smith
Jessica Moulton Special Education teacher Smith
Ellen Muir Court Reporter
Catherine Putney-Yaceshyn Hearing Officer
The official record of this hearing consists of: Parent’s exhibits marked P-1 through P-12; Smith Vocational and Agricultural High School’s exhibits marked S-1 through S-13; and approximately 6 hours of recorded oral testimony.
ISSUES
1. Whether Student’s behavior on April 10, 2026 was a manifestation of his disability.
SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE
1. Student (hereafter, “Student”) is fifteen-years-old and attends the Smith Vocational and Agricultural High School (“Smith”) He is eligible for special education under the categories of autism and intellectual impairment. (S-3) Student has a full scale IQ of 70.[1] He has also been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (combined type) and generalized anxiety disorder. (S-4)
2. A psycho-educational evaluation completed as part of Student’s three-year reevaluation in December 2022 reported Mother’s significant concerns with Student’s ability to regulate and monitor behavior effectively, resist impulses, and his ability to regulate emotional responses or adjust to changes in environment, people, plans, or demands. (S-5)
3. Smith administered a “Pneumatic Nail Gun and Stapler Safety Assessment” to Student, consisting of 15 multiple choice questions, on or around September 4, 2025. Student was assessed to be at the proficient level on the manipulative skills assessment of the pneumatic nailer by instructor, “BT”. (S-9)
4. On October 3, 2025, Brian Theriault, Student’s carpentry teacher, emailed mother regarding an incident that took place in shop that day. Student had been working on a project when he used a tool to heat up a screw through friction and touched another student’s hand with the hot screw, causing a very minor burn mark. Mr. Theriault spoke to Student who accepted responsibility for his actions. The other student was not concerned, but Mr. Theriault thought it was important to inform Mother and asked her to speak to Student about the importance of safety, good judgment, and respectful behavior toward peers. (P-11)
5. A psychological assessment completed in October 2025 Jane M. Riley, Ph.D., Smith School Psychologist, reported Mother’s concern that Student “goes from 0-100 with his emotions and struggles with effective coping skills when stressed out or not liking the response he’s given.” Student’s special education teacher, Jessica Moulton, noted that Student was not social with the students in her class, but had a group of friends. She further noted her concern that Student has a low frustration tolerance to work. His shop teacher, Mr. Theriault, reported that he is easy to get along with and adjusted well as a new student, becoming “part of the group.” Student showed mild delays in adaptive skills as assessed by the BASC-3 teacher and Parent scales. He showed difficulty on the BASC with transitions at home, social skills, leadership, study skills, and very mild communication difficulties at school. (S-4)
Student’s adaptive behavior skills as assessed by his special education teacher using the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales were in the low range (mostly below the first percentile). He received a standard score of 60 in Communication, 64 in daily living skills, and 50 in socialization, with a composite score of 58. (S-4)
The psychological report concluded that during the first few months Student had been at Smith, he was presenting as typical in the realms of emotional, behavioral, and social functioning in the shop setting. Student’s mother and special education teacher noted typical behavioral and emotional functioning but significant concerns with social skills. (S-4)
Dr. Riley made several recommendations in her report, among them that Student receive support from the school adjustment counselor to assist him in developing the ability to navigate social situations and increase self-awareness. (S-4)
6. On October 24, 2025, Ethan Percy, Assistant Principal, Smith, sent Parents a letter indicating he was considering a short-term suspension of Student due to an incident on the bus on October 21, 2025. Student had allegedly used extremely inappropriate language toward another student. Additionally, he threatened to shoot a student with a cross bow, and, among other inappropriate and lewd comments, told a student he would do something inappropriate to his mother, and told another student he would do something inappropriate to his face. Mr. Perry scheduled a disciplinary hearing on October 29, 2025 to determine whether Student would be suspended. In a letter dated October 29, 2025, Mr. Perry informed Parents and Student that Student would be suspended for four days, two days externally and two days internally. Student was also required to complete “additional BASE Educational modules focused on impacts of behavior and anger management”, would be temporarily suspended from the bus, and thereafter would be required to sit at the front of the school bus for the rest of the school year. (P-9)
7. Dr. Riley testified that Student’s three-year evaluation was conducted early due to concerns about Student being disengaged during his academic classes. (Riley) The Team agreed to add a counseling goal to be implemented by the school adjustment counselor. Student’s baseline summary states that Student struggles academically and does not ask for help or communicate his needs or frustrations clearly, and that “he has had some behavioral interventions as well.” The summary further indicated that he did not communicate his feelings effectively and has communicated with peers in a very disrespectful way. (S-2)
Student’s IEP for the period from November 13, 2025 through November 12, 2026 contains goals in reading/writing; math; academic support, and self-advocacy The self-advocacy goal was to increase self-awareness across academic, social, and emotional domains as evidenced by his ability to articulate when he needs help, to verbalize when frustrated and advocate for himself. His objectives included identifying ways he can communicate a need for support academically and when he is frustrated socially. The B grid provides for instructional support in math, science, History, and ELA with a shared paraprofessional 5 x 50 minutes per ten-day cycle alternating weeks. The C grid provides for academic support with a special education teacher 5x 50 minutes per 10-day cycle alternating weeks and counseling with the school adjustment counselor 1 x 30 minutes per 10-day cycle alternating weeks and as needed. (S-2) Student, like all students at Smith, attends academic classes and vocational classes on alternating weeks. He receives paraprofessional support during the academic weeks, but not during the vocational weeks. (Moulton)
8. Parents accepted the IEP and placement in a full inclusion program on December 3, 2025. (S-4)
9. Mother testified that Student received Early Intervention services and was on an IEP upon entering school. She noted that in school he has presented as fidgety, easily distracted, and academically behind. He began demonstrating behavioral issues in late elementary school. He was always getting into trouble and Parents were often called in for parent-teacher meetings. She described Student as a follower who cowers to peer pressure. She noted that Student was new to Smith when his psychoeducational testing was done and that once he becomes comfortable in a setting he pushes the limits without understanding the consequences. She testified that he tends to try anything without realizing the outcome. By way of example, she recounted that Student and his friends took branches off a 15-foot tree in their yard and he swung from a rope on the tree without ascertaining whether the tree could hold him. She also noted that he has an ATV that he rides without a helmet despite consistent reminders, without thinking of the consequences. She is concerned that Student does not understand social cues, social skills, or money skills. Mother described him as having a very short fuse and tends to not back down until he gets his way. She noted his slow processing speed and opined that he does not have the patience to take the time to process information to make the right decision. (Mother)
10. On April 10, 2026, an incident occurred in Student’s shop class. The Assistant Principal made a written statement of his understanding of the incident. His statement noted that Mr. Theriault radioed him and stated he was sending Student to him because Student had shot a nail gun in the direction of another student, (“student X”). When Student arrived at Mr. Percy’s office Mr. Percy asked what happened and Student stated he had made a really big mistake and “messed up really bad.” He admitted to shooting a nail gun at student X. Mr. Percy notified Mother and Principal Bianca. Later in the afternoon, Mr. Bianca asked Student whether he had pulled back the safety and Student said yes. Student admitted to knowing how dangerous and serious the situation was. (S-10)
11. Brian Theriault wrote a statement of his understanding of the incident dated April 10, 2026. He reported that while his students were working on independent projects he went to a carpentry storage shed behind D building to check on some other students. When he returned to the classroom he was informed that Student had picked up a Brad nailer and was shooting nails across the shop toward another student. Mr. Theriault explained to Student and the other students how dangerous the behavior was and radioed Mr. Percy. He listed the students who were in the shop and were potential witnesses to the incident. Mr. Theriault explained that it was reported to him that Student pulled back the safety with his finger and shot a Brad nailer that was hooked up to an air compressor toward another student. The other student hid behind a plywood board. Student reportedly then unhooked the Brad nailer from the air compressor and hooked up a second Brad nailer to the compressor and continued to shoot at the other student. The other student unhooked the Brad nailer from the air compressor and shut off the air as Student placed the nailer down. Mr. Theriault noted that he did not uncover any specific event that led to the act. He reported that the other student was given no warning that Student was going to shoot at him. He noted that multiple other students who witnessed the incident were in fear of being shot by nails. (S-11)
12. Prior to the April 16, 2026 manifestation determination meeting, Special Education Director, Rebecca Wanczyk, sent questionnaires to Student’s teachers. The questionnaires asked whether Student demonstrated the ability to determine right from wrong; to consider the outcome of behavior; whether he follows classroom rules and routines; whether he engages in safe behavior; whether he demonstrates the ability to voluntarily control his behavior; whether he demonstrates the ability to process or reason; whether he has the ability to see other perspectives; whether he understands consequences when given; and whether his behavior impacts his progress in the curriculum. The questionnaires were answered by Brian Theriault, Student’s carpentry teacher; Jessica Lindsey, Student’s English teacher; J. Shuford, Student’s biology teacher; Ryan Della Penna, Student’s physical education teacher; and Jessica Moulton, Student’s applied academics teacher. Mr. Theriault wrote that Student always demonstrates the ability to determine right from wrong; sometimes demonstrates the ability to consider the outcome of behavior; always follows classroom rules and routines; sometimes engages in safe behavior; and usually follows shop safety rules regarding the safe use of equipment. Ms. Lindsey’s answers indicated Student can sometimes break rules or not do what he is told because he thinks it is funny. She noted that he knows the rules and consequences in her class, but is still willing to break them; that he sometimes demonstrates the ability to process or reason and sometimes demonstrates the ability to see other perspectives. J. Shuford response reflected that Student is sometimes able to see other perspectives. Mr. Della Penna noted Student can sometimes demonstrate the ability to determine right from wrong; sometimes has the ability to consider the outcome of behavior; sometimes follows classroom rules; and sometimes understands consequences when they are given. Ms. Moulton reported that there was an incident earlier in the year when Student got angry and reacted in the moment, but he has since shown that he can control his behavior. (S-13)
13. Ms. Wanczyk spoke to most of the members of the manifestation team prior to the meeting to gather information about the incident. She asked Dr. Riley a number of questions about Student’s profile and how some of his test scores would impact his functioning. She spoke to Mr. Moore, the school adjustment counselor, about what he worked on with Student related to self-advocacy. She spoke to Jessia Moulton about what services Student would require if he were suspended long-term or expelled. She spoke to Mr. Theriault about his perception about what happened. (Wanczyk)
14. Mr. Percy’s notes from interviews he conducted of students who were in the shop during the incident contain some conflicting information. None of the students, other than student X, saw what precipitated the event. Student X reported that nothing led up to the incident and Student did not say anything to him. Some students reported that Student and student X were friends and fooled around in class frequently. Only student X noted that Student disconnected one nail gun and connected the other. He did not state that Student fired the second gun. Another student stated that she did not recall Student hooking up a second gun. (S-12)
15. The manifestation determination review (MDR), held on April 16, 2026, was chaired by Ms. Wanczyk. Other participants included Student, Mother, Father, Jessica Moulton, Thomas Moore, Brian Theriault, Ethan Percy and Colby Brunt, counsel for Smith. (Wanczyk) According to the N1 issued by Smith, the district determined that Student’s behavior was not a manifestation of his disability, and Parents disagreed with this determination. The MDR Team agreed that the behavior was not due to the district’s failure to implement the IEP. Parents asserted that Student’s multiple diagnoses, including ADHD, anxiety, low reasoning skills, and extremely low processing speed, had to be considered. They argued that Student’s ability to use good judgment is impacted by his disabilities, and lack of such judgment is therefore a manifestation of disability. His parents and attorney asserted that the incident would not have occurred if Student had had adult support during his shop week as he did during his academic week. The district claimed that the adult support was provided to assist Student in his learning struggles, not for behavioral support or supervision. They asserted that behavior and not been identified as an area of concern related to his disability areas of autism and intellectual impairment, the disability areas reflected in his current IEP. (S-1)
Parents’ attorney raised Student’s prior behaviors, including the bus incident for which he received a four-day suspension, and the screw incident during which he burned a fellow student in shop class, in support of the argument that the behavior in question was a manifestation of his disability. The district responded that the prior screw incident was addressed by the teacher with the Parents and did not result in an administrative referral. The district did not agree that the information presented by Parents and their attorney substantiated that Student’s behavior was a manifestation of his disabilities, as Student had not demonstrated a pattern of behavioral issues and had no prior record of similar behavior to the shop incident. The district concluded that “the details of the incident did not suggest that [Student] demonstrated attention issues or was acting impulsively.” It also concluded that “[t]he details, as well as [Student]’s own account, suggested that he was not experiencing symptoms of anxiety and was not experiencing frustration that may have caused anxiety to be present.” It noted that the other student involved in the incident was “reportedly a friend of [Student]’s and someone who he routinely fools around with”, and thus, it did not seem to be a peer conflict that caused the behavior. The district further reported that the school adjustment counselor stated that Student had appropriately used his support when he experienced frustration and had responded to interventions when implemented. The district concluded that while Student’s profile does impact his learning and “may have had some correlation”, the evidence did not support a finding that Student’s behavior was caused by or had a direct and substantial relationship to his disabilities. (S-1)
Ms. Moulton, did not believe that Student’s conduct on April 10 was a manifestation of his disability. She based her opinion on her determination that Student had safely used the nail gun numerous times in the past and the fact that Student changed guns during the April 10 incident. (Moulton)
Ms. Wanczyk did not believe that Student’s conduct was caused by his disability. Her opinion was based on teacher reports and evaluation reports. She did not think that Student’s having a handful of isolated behavioral events was connected to his disability, and noted Student did not appear to have been involved in any type of conflict or show any level of frustration or anxiety. She hypothesized that the shop teacher’s leaving the building “probably provided an opportunity for [Student] and this other student to engage in some, you know, banter or horse play that got out of hand.” She then surmised that there was no peer conflict or anything adversarial based upon her understanding of what happened. Further, she was unaware of any evidence of any irregular social dynamic between the parties in the shop that day and she believed that if any such evidence existed, one of the students who was present would have come forward with that information. (Wanczyk)
Mr. Percy testified that upon questioning, Student told him that he had pulled back the safety and used the Brad nailer and that he understood how dangerous it was. He was not very familiar with Student’s disability profile and was not sure whether he had reviewed Student’s psychoeducational evaluation. He could not recall whether he asked Student if he understood what he was doing at the time of the incident. (Percy)
Dr. Riley did not attend the manifestation determination meeting. She did not believe that Student’s conduct was caused by his disability because she concluded that the conduct was purposeful and prolonged. She did not think it was the result of having learned a new skill and not doing it correctly. She viewed Student as being a competent vocational student and having the ability to make decisions and use dangerous tools in a safe manner. Dr. Riley did not have any information about what precipitated the incident. She was aware that the teacher had left the classroom, but did not have any information about what occurred after the teacher left and before Student picked up the nail gun. (Riley)
16. John Bianca, principal of Smith, sent Parents a letter dated April 17, 2026 informing them that Student was charged with possession and use of a dangerous weapon (nail gun), assault, threats to safety, threatening actions, and instigating a dangerous situation. He described the preliminary evidence regarding the incident noting that Student, while in the carpentry area, had allegedly used a compressed air-fired Brad nail gun to shoot nails at another student approximately 20-25 feet away from him. He further noted that Student allegedly intentionally disabled the safety mechanism that enabled him to fire nails at the other student. Further, he wrote, Student allegedly disconnected the nail gun from the air compressor and attached another nail gun to it and fired additional nails. Principal Bianca stated that he held a due process hearing with Student, Mother, Father, Amy Mercier, Student’s attorney, the assistant principal, and school attorney, Colby Brunt. (S-7)
17. Mr. Bianca determined that Student committed the offenses charged and he decided to expel him from Smith effective immediately. He stated that because Student had been identified as a student with a disability he would inform the Director of Student Services of Student’s discipline and noted Student’s rights to appeal the expulsion decision to the superintendent. (S-7)
18. Andrew Linkenhoker, Superintendent, sent Parents a letter dated April 30, 2026. He summarized the April 30 meeting and the charges against Student. He noted that he considered the evidence provided during the expulsion appeal hearing, including the mitigating circumstances Student’s attorney referenced for him to consider. including Student’s IEP, evaluative information, and teacher reports. He also considered Student’s disciplinary history. Dr. Linkenhoker concluded that Student knew nail guns were dangerous; he had been instructed on the proper use of them and used them properly previously. He concluded that Student’s actions were deliberate, extremely dangerous, and warranted expulsion. He stated that his determination was to uphold Principal Bianca’s expulsion decision. (S-7)
Legal Standards
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires that all eligible disabled students receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE).[2] The IDEA further requires compliance with procedural safeguards designed to protect the rights of parents and students,[3] ensuring meaningful parental participation.[4] Procedural protections serve a dual purpose: to ensure that each eligible child receives a FAPE, and to provide for meaningful parental participation.[5]
Massachusetts has adopted the IDEA, and specifically, the federal standards involving discipline of eligible students. (MGL c.71B and implementing regulations at 603 CMR.28.00 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 (a)(1) [20 USCS §1412 (a)(1)] although it may be provided in an interim alternative educational setting.[6] Students who are removed from their school placement for more than 10 school days in a school year must be provided educational services. 20 USC § 1415 (k)(1)(D).[7]
Following disciplinary removals amounting to 10 school days, the school district must convene a meeting to conduct a manifestation determination review (MDR)[8] 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])”[9], prior to initiating any additional disciplinary action. Pursuant to 34 CFR 300.530(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”[10] 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.”[11]
The answer to those questions determines the manner in which a student may be disciplined and the Team’s additional responsibilities.[12]
Lastly, pursuant to 20 U.S.C §1415 (k)(1)(G),
School personnel may remove a student to an interim alternative educational setting for not more than 45 school days without regard to whether the behavior is determined to be a manifestation of the child’s disability in cases where a child –
Carries or possess a weapon to or at school on school premises, or to or at a local function under the jurisdiction or a State or local educational agency.
The IDEA further requires that the school district notify the parent before taking disciplinary action against the student. The 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.[13]
BURDEN OF PERSUASION
The burden of persuasion in an administrative hearing is placed upon the party seeking relief. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 126 S. Ct. 528, 534, 537 (2005) In this case, Parents are the party seeking relief, and as such have the burden of persuading the Hearing Officer of their position by a preponderance of the evidence.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Student is an individual with a disability, falling within the purview of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)[14] and the state special education statute[15]. As such, he is entitled to a FAPE. Neither his status nor his entitlement is in dispute. The dispute arises as to whether Student’s conduct on April 10, 2026 was a manifestation of his disabilities.
There is no dispute that the conduct in which Student was found to have engaged was serious and dangerous. The dispute is over the manifestation team’s determination that Student’s conduct was not a manifestation of his disability. In assessing the evidence, I note that this case is unique in that neither side produced any witness who had observed or possessed direct knowledge of the incident. There were literally no adults in the room at the time that the conduct occurred.
The information that the manifestation determination Team relied upon with respect to what occurred during the incident in question was primarily Mr. Percy’s notes, taken after interviewing students who had been in or around the shop at the time of Student’s alleged conduct. Although Mr. Percy also consulted with Mr. Theriault, the latter had been outside of the building at the time of the conduct, and thus could not provide direct observations about what occurred prior to, during, or immediately after the incident. None of the members of the manifestation Team or witnesses at hearing had direct knowledge of what, if anything, occurred prior to the moment Student picked up the nail gun, although some speculated that nothing had happened prior to Student’s action. The only evidence provided regarding the details of the actual incident were the aforementioned notes from Mr. Percy’s interviews with students in and around the shop classroom. I did not rely on those statements as they were inconsistent, not supported by testimony, and not provided under oath.
There was evidence before the manifestation determination Team of prior incidents involving Student during the school year. It is unclear how much discussion transpired about the heated screw burning incident. However, interestingly, despite knowing of this incident, at least one member of the Team concluded that Student had always been able to maintain safety in the shop setting. The bus incident during which Student became extremely dysregulated during a dispute with peers and threatened to shoot a student with a cross bow was also known to the MDR team. Likewise, Mother testified that Student at times has a short fuse. Ms. Moulton testified that Student has a low frustration tolerance for work. His psychological testing showed he had difficulty with social skills and Mother echoed those concerns. One of his IEP goals focused on assisting him i in navigating social situations, with objectives including identifying ways to communicate when he is frustrated socially. The questionnaires that Ms. Wanczyk sent to Student’s teachers prior to the manifestation yielded responses that he was “sometimes able to demonstrate the ability to consider the outcome of behavior” from multiple teachers.
Despite awareness of all the above, and despite not having any direct details as to what, if anything, precipitated Student’s behavior or exactly what transpired during the incident, the Team concluded that Student’s behavior was not a manifestation of his disability. Ms. Wanczyk’s determination in this regard was based in part on her conclusion that Student’s behavior did not appear to have involved any type of conflict or show any level of frustration or anxiety. Ms. Moulton’s determination was based partially on her belief that Student had exchanged nail guns at some point during the incident. Neither of those conclusions was supported by credible evidence. Further, Mr. Percy testified that Student told him after the incident that he understood how dangerous and serious the situation was. However, there was no evidence as to whether Student appreciated this prior to the incident.
Based upon the totality of the evidence before me, I find that the manifestation determination was defective because it was not premised on sufficient information about the incident from which an accurate determination of whether or not the behavior was a manifestation of his disability could be made. Without reliable witnesses to the alleged conduct and without knowledge of what, if anything, precipitated the incident the Team could not make a reasonable determination as to whether or not Student’s conduct was a manifestation of his disability. However, given the facts of the instant matter, this does not mean that Student cannot be disciplined for the serious and dangerous conduct in which he admittedly engaged. Here, because he carried or possessed a weapon, the nail gun, at school, he can be removed to an interim alternative educational setting for not more than 45 school days without regard to whether the behavior is determined to be a manifestation of the child’s disability in accordance with 20 U.S.C §1415 (k)(1)(G). At the conclusion of the 45 school days, he will be permitted to return to his placement. Because Parents have requested a functional behavioral assessment and Smith has agreed to conduct one, such assessment will be completed upon Student’s return to Smith.
ORDER
There was insufficient evidence upon which the manifestation Team could make a determination as to whether Student’s conduct on April 10, 2026 was a manifestation of his disability.
Student may be removed to an interim alternate educational setting for not more than 45 school days.
Upon Student’s return to Smith, the district will conduct a functional behavioral assessment of Student.
By the Hearing Officer,
/s/ Catherine M. Putney-Yaceshyn
Catherine M. Putney-Yaceshyn
Dated: May 22, 2026
Footnotes
[1] His composite scores on the WISC-V in October 2025 were: Verbal Comprehension: 84; Visual Spatial: 81; Fluid Reasoning: 76; Working memory: 82; and Processing Speed: 60. (S-3, S-4)
[2] 20 USC §1400 (d)(1)(A).
[3] 20 USC §1415 (f)(3)(E)(ii); 34 CFR 300.513 (a)(2).
[4] See Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).
[5] 20 USC §1415(b)(3)(A) and (B).
[6] See 34 CFR 300.530 et seq.
[7] See 34 CFR 300.530(b)(2) and (d)(1)-(5).
[8] 20 USC. §1415(k)(1)(E) and 34 CFR 300.530(e).
[9] 20 USC § 1415(k)(1)(E)(i); 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(e)(1).
[10] Id.
[11] 20 USC § 1415(k)(1)(E)(i)(II); 34 CFR § 300.430(e)(1)(ii).
[12] See 20 USC § 1415(k)(1)(C); 20 USC §1415(k)(1)(F)(i) and (ii); and 20 USC §1415(k)(1)(F)(iiii). See also, 34 CFR § 300.530(c) and 34 CFR § 300.530(g).
[13] 20 USC § 1415(k)(1(H).
[14] 20 USC 1400 et seq.
[15] MGL c. 71B.