COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In re: Jack[1] and Winchester Public Schools BSEA # 2613129
RULING ON PARENTS’ REQUEST FOR STAY-PUT
This matter comes before the Hearing Officer on the Emergency Motion/Request for Interim Stay Put Order (Motion) filed by Parents against Winchester Public Schools (Winchester, or the District) on May 18, 2026. After an assented-to extension, the District filed its Opposition to Emergency Motion for Stay Put (Opposition) on May 26, 2026. The parties supplemented written submissions with oral argument during a Motion Session on May 27, 2026.
In the underlying matter, on May 6, 2026, Parents filed a Hearing Request, asserting that Jack, an 18-year-old senior placed by Winchester at Northshore Academy Upper School (NSAU), has been denied a free appropriate public education (FAPE). According to Parents, Jack requires specially designed instruction in a therapeutic milieu to address deficits in communication, social skills, social-emotional functioning, and executive functioning, and although he has met academic requirements, the District failed to provide adequate transition services to address his needs. As such, Winchester must maintain his eligibility for special education rather than graduate him in June 2026. Specifically, Parents contend that the District failed to provide adequate transition services in the areas of education/training, employment, and independent living; attempted to graduate Jack improperly, thereby terminating his eligibility; and offered services outside of the Team meeting process that bypassed its obligations under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Parents allege that as a result of Winchester’s action and inaction, Jack was denied a FAPE, including the foundational life and vocational skills to which he is entitled. Parents, who rejected the Individualized Education Program (IEP) proposed by Winchester for the period 2/5/2026 to 6/17/2026 (2026 IEP) on March 9, 2026, seek deferral of graduation until Jack can meet functional transition goals in a properly developed IEP that incorporates SOAR, a transition program specifically designed for 18-22 year-old neurodivergent students; protection of Jack’s right to transition services; and enforcement of stay-put to allow Jack to remain at NSAU for the remainder of the school year and through the summer of 2026.
The Hearing was scheduled for June 10, 2026.
On May 18, 2026, Winchester filed its Response to Parents’ Hearing Request, arguing that Jack has completed state and local graduation requirements and received a FAPE. As such, he will graduate in June, thereby ending his entitlement to special education services from the District.
On May 18, 2026, Parents filed the instant Motion, asserting that Jack must remain at his current educational placement through the pendency of the dispute. Parents seek an Order preventing Winchester from issuing Jack’s diploma or graduating him and requiring the District to maintain Jack’s placement and services until the underlying matter is resolved. Parents further requested that the Hearing be expedited to the extent practicable, given the impending graduation date. In its Opposition, the District argues that the BSEA lacks the authority to order stay put on issues of graduation and eligibility and that, because the BSEA cannot order Winchester to delay Jack’s graduation or extend his eligibility for an IEP, Parents’ Motion should be denied in its entirety.
On May 20, 2026, the Hearing Officer advanced the Conference Call, and the Hearing on the instant Motion was scheduled for May 27, 2026.
For the reasons set forth below, Parents’ Motion is ALLOWED.
DISCUSSION
I. Legal Framework
As the party seeking to demonstrate that Jack has the right to stay-put pending resolution of the dispute, Parents bear the burden of persuasion on their Motion.[2]
A. Defining Children with Disabilities
With exceptions that do not apply here, the IDEA requires that states, as a condition of receiving federal funding, provide a FAPE to children with disabilities from the ages of three to twenty one, inclusive.[3] In Massachusetts, an individual remains eligible for special education until his twenty-second birthday, so long as he has not attained a high school diploma or its equivalent.[4]
B. The Stay-Put Provision
Under the IDEA’s stay-put provision, unless the school district and the parent otherwise agree, during the time they are engaged in an IDEA dispute resolution process, “the child shall remain in the then-current educational placement of the child.”[5] Corresponding Massachusetts regulations echo this principle: “during the pendency of any dispute regarding placement or services, the eligible student shall remain in his or her then-current educational program and placement unless the school district and the parents agree otherwise.”[6] The essential purpose of stay-put is “to preserve the status quo pending resolution” of a dispute between the parties.[7] Generally, the placement associated with the last accepted, implemented IEP is considered the stay-put placement.[8]
i. Stay-Put Provision and Graduation
As graduation from high school is a change of placement, procedural safeguards are warranted, including advance notice of the planned graduation and an opportunity to contest the decision to graduate the student at a due process hearing.[9] In Massachusetts, students must meet both state competency determination requirements and local requirements to graduate.[10] A student with disabilities must meet these standards to graduate, but he must also make effective progress on his IEP goals and objectives.[11] A school district cannot, therefore, graduate a student for whom it did not provide a FAPE.[12] Although the person with decision-making authority (parent, guardian, or student, if 18) cannot refuse the high school diploma, she can reject the final IEP on the basis that it denies the student a FAPE.[13] Should this happen, the party with decision-making authority has the right to request a hearing, because receiving a high school diploma marks the end of a student’s eligibility for special education.[14] Whether a school district provided a student a FAPE turns on whether the district complied with procedures of IDEA and whether the student’s IEP was reasonably calculated to meet his needs.[15]
When a parent or student files a Hearing Request at the BSEA alleging that the student has been denied a FAPE, the school district must maintain the student’s stay-put during the pendency of the dispute.[16] In the context of a FAPE denial related to graduation, the adequacy of transition planning and services warrants significant consideration, because such services are “designed within an outcome-oriented process” aimed at preparing students for post-secondary life.[17] If a Hearing Officer determines that a student has been denied FAPE, she may award compensatory services notwithstanding the award of a diploma or the student’s age.[18] If the Hearing Officer issues a stay-put order prior to the issuance of the diploma, eligibility may be continued pending the resolution of the dispute.[19]
II. Analysis
In the instant case, graduating Jack while the dispute is pending would terminate his eligibility for special education.[20] Parents rejected the proposed 2026 IEP on March 9, 2026, alleging that Jack was denied a FAPE due to the inadequacy of his transition services. Their rejection of Jack’s final IEP, almost three months before his proposed graduation date of June 5, 2026, was timely.[21] Even if the District is correct that Jack has met the Massachusetts competency standards for graduation, Parents’ allegation that Winchester deprived him of a FAPE by failing to provide adequate transition services in the areas of education/training, employment, and independent living, warrants deferral of graduation until the dispute has been resolved.[22] Given that Parents are not merely refusing a diploma, but rejecting Jack’s final proposed IEP and graduation date on the basis that he has been denied a FAPE, Jack is entitled to stay-put at his last agreed placement.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
As Parents have met their burden to establish that Jack has the right to stay-put pending resolution of the underlying dispute, their Motion for stay-put is hereby ALLOWED. Jack will continue his program at NSAU until this dispute is resolved.
The District must not issue a diploma to Jack until the dispute is resolved and it is determined that Jack was not denied a FAPE, or until he has otherwise met all graduation requirements, including those relating to transition services.[23]
By the Hearing Officer:[24]
/s/ Amy Reichbach
Date: June 3, 2026
Footnotes
[1] “Jack” is a pseudonym chosen by the Hearing Officer to protect the privacy of the Student in documents available to the public.
[2] See Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 62 (2005).
[3] See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(A); id. at B (obligation to provide a FAPE to children with disabilities between the ages of three and five and/or between 18 and 21 does not apply in states where such requirement conflicts with State law).
[4] See M.G.L. c. 71B, § 1 (defining “school age child” as “any person of ages three through twenty-one who has not attained a high school diploma or its equivalent”); Student v. Blue Hills Regional Technical High School (Ruling on Blue Hills Regional Technical High School’s Motion to Dismiss and in the Alternative Motion to Narrow the Scope of the Hearing), BSEA # 2008213 (Figueroa, 2020) [hereinafter Blue Hills Ruling] (“Pursuant to the IDEA and Massachusetts special education law, eligibility for special education services expires when an eligible student receives his/ her high school diploma (or equivalent), or when the student turns twenty-two years old, if he/she has not previously received a diploma or equivalent.”)
[5] 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j); see Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 308 (1988); Verhoeven v. Brunswick Sch. Comm., 207 F.3d 1, 10 (1st Cir. 1999).
[6] 603 CMR 28.08(7); see In Re: Gregory (Ruling on Parent’s Motion for Stay-Put and Placement) BSEA # 2500690 (Reichbach, 2024).
[7] Doe v. Brookline Sch. Comm., 772 F.2d 910, 915 (1st Cir. 1983); In Re: Concord and Natick Public Schools, BSEA # 1800182 (Corrected Ruling on Mother’s Request for “Stay Put” Order) (Berman, 2017).
[8] See Drinker ex rel. Drinker v. Colonial Sch. Dist., 78 F.3d 859, 867 (3rd Cir. 1996); see also N.D. v. State Dep’t of Educ., 600 F.3d 1104, 1114 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We have interpreted ‘current educational placement’ to mean ‘the placement set forth in the child’s last implemented IEP” (internal citations omitted)); In Re: Belmont Public Schools and Devereux Advanced Behavioral Health (Ruling on Parents’ Motion for Stay Put), BSEA # 2103476 (Figueroa, 2020) (“As used in the stay-put provision, the word ‘current’ generally means the placement and services that are in effect when the parents file their due process complaint, and in most instances, these services will be found in the student’s most recently implemented IEP”).
[9] 34 CFR 300.102(a)(3)(iii); Stock v. Massachusetts Hospital Sch., 392 Mass. 205, 210 (1994); In Re: Marblehead Public Schools v. Student (Ruling on Parent’s and Student’s Emergency Motion for Stay Put), BSEA #s 2514558, 2600038 (Berman, 2025) [hereinafter Marblehead Ruling].
[10] 603 CMR 30.02. Under 603 CMR 30.03, graduating students in the class of 2026 must have, “shown mastery of a common core of skills, competencies and knowledge in English language arts, mathematics, and science; and . . . [have] satisfactorily completed coursework that has been certified by the student's district as showing mastery of the skills, competencies, and knowledge contained in the Massachusetts academic standards and curriculum frameworks in English language arts, mathematics, and science as measured by the MCAS high school assessments administered in 2023.” These requirements include particular coursework in various subject areas.
[11] Kevin T. v. Elmhurst Cmty. Sch. Dist., 2002 WL 433061 (N.D. Ill. 2002), at *14; see Doe v. Marlborough Pub. Sch., 2010 WL 2682433 (D. Mass. 2010), at * 6; see also In Re: Student v. Reading Public Schools, BSEA # 2008819 (Kantor Nir, 2020) (“Although achievement of IEP goals is not a prerequisite for award of a regular high school diploma, the student's IEP must be calculated to provide the student with an educational benefit, and the student must have made progress towards the goals set forth in his/her IEP. “)
[12] Marlborough Pub. Sch., 2010 WL 2682433, at *6 (“… a school district may not properly graduate a student with disabilities if the student was not provided with FAPE as required by IDEA”).
[13] See Marblehead Ruling; Blue Hills Ruling; Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE), Special Education Policy Memo SY2025-2026-2: Graduation and Transition Planning for Students with IEPs (June 17, 2025) [hereinafter DESE SY 2025-2026-2].
[14] See 603 CMR 28.08(7); Marblehead Ruling; DESE SY 2025-2026-2.
[15] Board of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-207 (1982).
[16] See 603 CMR 28.08(7); DESE SY 2025-2026-2. See also, e.g., Marlborough Pub. Sch., 2010 WL 2682433, at *11 (where graduation was disputed, “it was appropriate to apply the stay-put provision until the resolution of this dispute to safeguard the interests of the Student and prevent Marlborough from deciding this dispute unilaterally”); Marblehead Ruling (where “Parent rejected the final IEP well prior to the graduation date listed in the proposed IEP, and explicitly rejected termination of services and the proposed graduation date, Student is entitled to ‘stay put’ at her last agreed placement . . . pending final resolution”); In Re: Student v. Boston Public Schools, BSEA # 2403492 (Figueroa, 2024) (“Once the parent accesses resolution of the claims [rejecting a student’s IEP on the basis of a denial of a FAPE], the student will be entitled to the IDEA procedural protections including ‘stay-put’”); Reading Public Schools (“When a student with a disability challenge his/her graduation through a due process hearing, the responsible school district must maintain the student’s current placement until the dispute is resolved”).
[17] In Re: Quabbin Regional School District (Ruling on Motion to Dismiss, Motion for Summary Decision, and Motion to Limit Scope of Hearing), BSEA #s 053115, 054356 (Crane, 2005) (emphasizing importance of adequate transition planning prior to graduating a student); see Elizabeth M. v. William S. Hart Union High Sch. Dist., 2003 WL 25514791 (C.D.Ca. 2003), at *4 (where student’s stated transition goal was to pursue post-high school education, “[a]n adequate high school education [was] inextricably linked to a successful transition to post-secondary education”); In Re: Carver Public Schools, BSEA # 002574 (Beron, 2001) (“a Hearing Officer may declare a regular diploma invalid where the district failed to provide advance notice or a transition plan”).
[18] See Pihl v. Mass Dep’t of Educ., 9 F.3d 184, 189-190 (1993) (“In order to give meaning to a disabled student's right to an education between the ages of three and twenty-one, compensatory education must be available beyond a student's twenty-first birthday. Otherwise, school districts simply could stop providing required services to older teenagers, relying on the Act's time-consuming review process to protect them from further obligations”). See also Dracut Sch. Comm. v. Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, 737 F. Supp. 2d 35, 53-55 (D. Mass. 2010) (noting that whereas a Hearing Officer cannot extend eligibility, he may award compensatory services, regardless of a student’s eligibility for current or future services under the IDEA).
[19] See Dracut, 737 F. Supp. 2d at 55.
[20] See 34 CFR 300.102(a)(3)(iii).
[21] See Marblehead Ruling.
[22] See Marlborough Pub. Sch., 2010 WL 2682433, at *6 (“notwithstanding that the Student met all requirements for graduation, the Court must nevertheless evaluate whether Marlborough deprived him of FAPE under IDEA by graduating him”).
[23] See Dracut, 737 F. Supp. 2d at 55 (noting that a student’s eligibility may be continued by way of a stay-put order, which prohibits a school district from issuing a diploma).
[24] The undersigned Hearing Officer is grateful for the diligent assistance of legal intern Olivia Syat in the preparation of this Ruling.