COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In re: Michael[1] & Frontier Regional and Union 38 School District BSEA # 2614260
RULING ON FRONTIER REGIONAL & UNION 38 SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION TO JOIN HATFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOLS
This matter comes before the Hearing Officer on the Motion to Join Hatfield Public Schools (Motion) filed by Frontier Regional and Union 38 School District (Frontier, or the District) on June 4, 2026, in a matter pending before the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA). Neither party requested a hearing on the Motion, nor did Hatfield Public Schools (Hatfield), and as formal oral argument would not advance my understanding of the issues involved, this Ruling is issued without a hearing, pursuant to Rule VI(D) of the BSEA Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals (BSEA Hearing Rules).
On May 22, 2026, Parents filed a Hearing Request against the District, which Michael attends pursuant to an interdistrict school choice program, asserting that the Individualized Education Program (IEP) proposed for Michael for the period from April 8, 2025 to April 7, 2026 (2025-2026 IEP) was not reasonably calculated to provide him with a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE); that the IEP proposed for Michael for the period from April 8, 2026 to April 7, 2027 (2026-2027 IEP) was not reasonably calculated to provide him with a FAPE in the LRE; and that Frontier has committed procedural violations amounting to a deprivation of a FAPE.[2] Parents acknowledge that on May 14, 2025, they accepted the 2025-2026 IEP and full inclusion placement in full, but they contend the IEP was not implemented with fidelity, and that Frontier’s failure to issue IEP Amendments reflecting two Team meetings during the term of the 2025-2026 IEP resulted in Michael experiencing harassment, which affected his ability to access his education. Parents further allege that the 2026-2027 IEP, which they accepted in part and rejected in part, and corresponding full inclusion placement, which they rejected, is not reasonably calculated to provide Michael with a FAPE. They seek the following findings: (1) that Michael’s 2025-2026 IEP was not reasonably calculated to provide him with a FAPE in the LRE; (2) that his 2026-2027 IEP is not reasonably calculated to provide him with a FAPE in the LRE and cannot be modified to do so; (3) that Michael requires placement in an out-of-district program to receive a FAPE; and (4) that Frontier committed procedural errors resulting in a deprivation of a FAPE. Parents request an Order placing Michael prospectively at an out-of-district school servicing students with his learning profile. They also seek an Order directing the District to convene a Team meeting, develop an IEP placing Michael at the out-of-district school, and fund transportation to and from the out-of-district school; and to provide compensatory services to Michael and reimburse Parents for privately obtained tutoring and attorney’s fees.
The Hearing was scheduled for June 29, 2026.
On June 4, 2026, Frontier filed its Response to the Request for Hearing, asserting that Michael has received and continues to receive a FAPE in the LRE. Specifically, the District contends that the 2025-2026 IEP was reasonably calculated to provide Michael with a FAPE and, furthermore, it was accepted in full and was never rejected prior to its expiration; that the 2026-2027 IEP is reasonably calculated to provide Michael with a FAPE; and no evaluator familiar with Michael or his Frontier program has recommended an out-of-district placement.
On June 4, 2026, Frontier also filed the instant Motion, pursuant to Hatfield’s explicit request for it to do so. According to Frontier, because Michael resides with his family in Hatfield and attends Frontier as a school choice student, if the Hearing Officer concludes that some part of Michael's IEP is insufficient, Hatfield may be able to provide additional services to ensure that he receives a FAPE. Furthermore, should the BSEA order placement of Michael outside of the District, Hatfield would bear ultimate financial responsibility for such placement. For the same reasons that the District would invite Hatfield to participate in any Team meeting considering placement pursuant to 603 CMR 18.10(6)(b),[3] Frontier asserts that Hatfield is a necessary party.
On June 22, 2026, the parties jointly requested postponement of the Hearing to October 28 and 30 and November 2, 2026. This request was granted for good cause.
I. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND[4]
1. Michael is a 15-year-old student residing with his family in Hatfield, Massachusetts. Michael attended Hatfield through fifth grade. His early educational history included a period on an IEP, followed by a transition to a Section 504 Plan. At the end of fifth grade, Hatfield maintained a 504 Plan for Michael, with the qualifying basis identified as a gastrointestinal diagnosis (encopresis).
2. Parents provided private reading tutoring for Michael from fourth grade (2020) through sixth grade (2022-2023 school year).
3. During the 2021-2022 school year, when Michael was in fifth grade, Parents referred him for an initial special education evaluation. Hatfield concluded that he was not eligible but added some accommodations to his Section 504 Plan.
4. For sixth grade (the 2022-2023 school year), Michael enrolled in an elementary school within the Frontier Regional/Union #38 District through the interdistrict school choice program. He continued to receive accommodations through his 504 Plan.
5. For seventh grade (the 2023-2024 school year), Michael transitioned to Frontier Regional School, also through the school choice program, and continued to receive accommodations pursuant to his 504 Plan.
6. In September 2024, following an assault on Michael at school, Parents requested that Frontier conduct a special education evaluation.
7. School-based academic testing conducted in December 2024 was insufficient to establish eligibility for a specific learning disability (SLD). After a Team meeting in January 2025, the Team agreed to conduct an extended evaluation with a literacy specialist. Parents consented to the extended evaluation on or about February 5, 2025.
8. On April 8, 2025, the Team convened, found Michael eligible under the SLD category, and developed the 2025-2026 IEP. This IEP, which included extended school year (ESY) services, proposed placement in a full inclusion program. Parents accepted this IEP and placement in full on May 14, 2025.
9. In May 2025, Frontier completed psychological and speech-language evaluations. A Team meeting to review these evaluations was held on June 2, 2025, and a second Team meeting was held on September 15, 2025. Although Parents contend that no formal amendments were issued directly following these Team meetings, Frontier asserts that the Amendment proposed during the June 2, 2025 Team meeting was made available to Parents via PowerSchool and a hard copy was given to them on September 15, 2025. Parents ultimately accepted the June Amendment on March 16, 2026.
10. Michael’s annual review meeting took place on two separate dates: March 20, 2026 and April 8, 2026.
11. Although Parents’ Hearing Request states that on April 7, 2026, they “rejected the district’s program and notified the district of their intent to obtain private reading services and seek reimbursement,” it is unclear whether Parents mean to say that they rejected the 2025-2026 IEP, the extended year services contained in the 2025-2026 IEP, and/or the 2026-2027 IEP that was still in development. According to Frontier, Parents never rejected the 2025-2026 IEP during its lifetime.
12. On April 30, 2026, Parents partially rejected the proposed 2026-2027 IEP.
13. Following a meeting on May 27, 2026, the Team proposed an Amendment to the 2026-2027 IEP and continued to propose a full inclusion placement.
II. DISCUSSION
I reiterate at the outset that Hatfield affirmatively requested that Frontier seek joinder and that by so doing, Frontier has assented to the joinder request. Parents did not file a response or otherwise express a position. To determine whether joinder is proper, however, I must still apply the relevant legal standard to the facts of this case.
A. Legal Standard
Pursuant to the BSEA’s joinder rule, set forth in Rule I(J) of the BSEA Hearing Rules:
Upon written request of a party, a Hearing Officer may allow for the joinder of a party in cases where complete relief cannot be granted among those who are already parties, or if the party being joined has an interest relating to the subject matter of the case and is so situated that the case cannot be disposed of in its absence. Factors considered in the determination of joinder are: the risk of prejudice to the present parties in the absence of the proposed party; the range of alternatives for fashioning relief; the inadequacy of a judgment entered in the proposed party’s absence; and the existence of an alternative forum to resolve the issues.
B. Analysis
In the present case, because Michael attends Frontier pursuant to school choice, should the Hearing Officer determine that the 2026-2027 IEP proposed for Michael is not reasonably calculated to provide him with a FAPE, complete relief cannot be granted in Hatfield’s absence. In the event the Hearing Officer determines that additional services are necessary for Michael to receive a FAPE, Hatfield may be able to provide those services. Moreover, to the extent the Hearing Officer may conclude that Michael requires an out-of-district placement, Hatfield would bear financial responsibility for such placement.[5] Hatfield, therefore, has a direct interest in the matter.
The remaining BSEA Hearing Rule I(J) factors further support joinder. The voluntary and mutual nature of this request by the moving party and the party sought to be joined, and the absence of any opposition by Parents, resolves any concern of prejudice to the present parties and renders resort to an alternative forum unnecessary.
For the foregoing reasons, Hatfield is a necessary party to this matter, and joinder is appropriate.
ORDER
1) Frontier’s unopposed Motion to Join Hatfield Public Schools is hereby ALLOWED.
2) A Pre-Hearing Conference will take place over a virtual platform at 11:00 AM on August 25, 2026.
3) The matter will proceed to Hearing at the BSEA on October 28, 30, and November 2, 2026, beginning at 10:00 AM each day.
By the Hearing Officer:[6]
/s/ Amy Reichbach
Date: July 7, 2026
Footnotes
[1] “Michael” is a pseudonym chosen by the Hearing Officer to protect the privacy of the Student in documents available to the public.
[2] Parents also asserted, for purpose of exhaustion, a claim for monetary damages.
[3] Pursuant to 603 CMR 28.10(6)(b), “For schools attended pursuant to M.G.L. c. 76, § 12B (school choice), such schools may bill and receive payment from the school district where the student resides for the costs of out-of-district placements made by the program school. The program school shall invite the school district where the student resides to participate as a member of the student's Team and shall provide notice of the Team meeting at least five school days prior to the meeting, provided that such participation shall not limit the student's right to a timely evaluation and placement in accordance with 603 CMR 28.00.”
[4] The information in this section is drawn from the pleadings and is subject to revision in future proceedings.
[5] See 603 CMR 28.10(6)(b).
[6] The Hearing Officer gratefully acknowledges the diligent assistance of legal intern Iman Aoun in the preparation of this Ruling.