COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Division of Administrative Law Appeals
Bureau of Special Education Appeals
In Re: Student v. South Hadley Public Schools
BSEA # 2614590
Ruling on South Hadley Public Schools’ Motion to Dismiss
On May 29, 2026, Parent filed a Request for Hearing in the above-referenced matter.
On June 5, 2026, South Hadley Public Schools (South Hadley or the District) filed a Challenge to the Sufficiency of Parent’s Hearing Request. On June 5, 2026, Parent filed an Opposition to the District’s Sufficiency Challenge and a First Amended Hearing Request (Amendment). A Ruling finding Parent’s Hearing Request sufficient was issued on June 9, 2026.
Parent’s Hearing Request and Amendment raise numerous allegations, including a claim challenging disciplinary action; that is, whether South Hadley failed to convene a manifestation determination review meeting (MDR) following Student’s suspensions/ exclusions. Given the lack of clarity and convoluted nature of Parent’s submissions, including the references to the alleged discipline-related violations, and out of an abundance of caution, the issue involving MDR was scheduled consistent with the expedited track timelines by the undersigned Hearing Officer despite this issue not ultimately meeting the federal/ state standard for expedited status. As s such, the case was bifurcated and a Hearing on the MDR claim was scheduled for an expedited hearing on June 16, 2026.
Specifically, Parent’s claims are as follows:
1. Denial of a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) via Continuous Service Deprivation and Accommodation Failure:
Parent asserts that the District failed to implement Student’s Grid B, which provides 90 minutes of daily paraprofessional support, from January 23 to February 13, 2026. Parent asserts that this failure resulted in denial of academic access, trauma-induced dysregulation, and academic collapse, including 14 grades of zero in math.
2. Illegal Disciplinary Removal and Abuse of Emergency Pretext:
Parent asserts that at 4:55 p.m. on February 2, 2026, the District fabricated an “Emergency Removal” notice despite having allowed Student to remain in class/ school until his regular dismissal at 2:30 p.m. that day. Parent asserts that South Hadley used this “after-hours mechanism as a fraudulent pretext to strip the Student of his right to a prior hearing, deny parental presence, and execute an immediate suspension to prevent an honest audit of its staffing vacancies."
3. Procedural Failure to Hold a Mandatory Manifestation Determination Review:
Relying on Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) disciplinary safeguards, Parent asserts that “the district executed disciplinary removals consisting of an after-school emergency removal, a three day out of school suspension (February 3-5), 1/2 day in school suspension (February 6th), and a four-day constructive suspension via the academic Washington, D. C. Trip exclusion (March 24- 27) - while flatly refusing the Parent’s explicit demand to convene an MDR.” Both special education providers were missing from the Student’s classes during the alleged incident on February 2, 2026. The District failed to notify Parent of their absence/ paraprofessional vacancy until after Student’s February 4 suspension hearing had concluded. Parent further asserts that the District violated her rights under 603 CMR 53.08 and 603 CMR 23.00, by failing to provide her the two office referrals, the reset room logs, and legible witness statements prior to Student’s February 4, 2026, suspension hearing, thereby sabotaging his defense. Parent asserts that Student was repeatedly punished for behavioral crises that were a direct manifestation of his documented disabilities and resulted from the District’s failure to offer the paraprofessional support to which Student is entitled.
4. Severe Violation of Parental Participation, Child Find Mandates, and Procedural Sabotage via Record Suppression:
Parent asserts that the District failed to produce witnesses requested by Parent during the February 4, 2026, disciplinary hearing; refused to present the physical pornographic evidence to the Parent; allowed Student’s annual IEP to expire in March of 2026 without timely reconvening of the Team; and withheld the physical office referral logs until April to block a timely appeal of the Washington D.C. trip ban. Parent also challenges the District withholding of “draft paperwork” prior to a May 19, 2026, meeting and impeding Parent’s participation by muting her and terminating the meeting, which was on a recorded line. Parent asserts that as a result of being deprived of meaningful participation in a placement meeting, which resulted in Student being left without necessary evaluations, undiagnosed and without appropriate behavioral goals, Student was denied a FAPE and Child Find mandates were violated.
5. Unlawful Exclusion of a Mandatory Student Member from Transition Review Jurisdictional Basis: Massachusetts Special Education Regulations (603 CMR 28.05(4)(c)):
Parent states that Student, then fourteen years old, was excluded from his secondary transition review meeting on May 19, 2026, despite being present in the building, thus depriving him of the opportunity to participate in shaping his post-secondary transition planning.
6. Maintenance of Fraudulent and Falsified Student Records:
Citing to Massachusetts Student Record Regulations 603 CMR 23.09 and Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) at 34 CFR § 99.20, Parent asserts that the Assistant Superintendent’s March 2, 2026 “Notice of Findings” contained “fabricated student confessions” and denied Parent “access to the physical referral sheets and evidence until April 2026”, infusing fraudulent and damming administrative logs into Student’s record, creating “a false record of behavioral referrals to justify” exclusion from a trip to Washington DC.
7. Disability-Based Retaliation, Harassment, and Unilateral Imposition of Non-IEP Contracts:
Relying on Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (34 CFR §100. 7(e)), Parent asserts that the District “weaponize[d] discipline, enforced double punishments (suspension plus trip exclusion), withheld official student records during a critical timeline, digitally mute[d] parent on an open line, execute[d] a 5-minute digital lockout, and issue[d] a fraudulent N1 to unilaterally impose restrictive ‘behavior contracts’” outside a properly convened team meeting. This resulted in creation of a hostile, unsafe and retaliatory educational environment that deprived Student of educational benefit because appropriate IEP behavioral goals were not developed. Student was forced to attend school under severe emotional and physical duress without the necessary updated accommodations.
In her Hearing Request/ Amendment, Parent seeks the following relief:
1) Immediate convening of a legally compliant manifestation determination review related to an incident occurring on February 2, 2026;
2) Implementation of temporary accommodations during the evaluation period;
3) Staff training on ADHD, disability law, and appropriate interventions;
4) Improved supervision practices;
5) Removal of disciplinary action related to disability-based behaviors (past or future) from Student’s record and that statements made by Student during the administration’s investigation in February of 2026 be expunged, stricken, and permanently removed from Student’s record. This request includes removal of any references to internal suspensions, to wit: the February 4, 2026, suspension, the March 24-27 “constructive trip suspension”, the March 2, 2026, administrative finding, and the May 19, 2026 N1 “behavior contracts”;
6) Compel the District to fully fund a private, alternative educational trip to make up for Student’s exclusion from the Washington D.C. trip;
7) Funding for private, independent compensatory academic and behavioral services to remedy the District’s failure to provide Grid B paraprofessional support and special education teacher hours from January 23, 2026 though the end of the academic school year;
8) Order a Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) facilitated reconvening of Student’s Team to review his expired Individualized Education Program (IEP) and the transition plan. Student must be included in this meeting, but specific staff, whom Parent names, must be excluded;
9) Enforce administrative stay-away orders preventing Principal Martinez from having any visual, verbal, or physical proximity to Student to ensure an educational environment free from harassment.
On June 8, 2026, South Hadley responded to Parent’s Hearing Request and also filed a Motion to Dismiss (Motion). In its Response to the Hearing Request, the District denies Parent’s allegations that the District failed to implement Student’s IEP following his paraprofessional’s retirement, improperly disciplined him or failed to conduct a manifestation determination review, prevented Parent from participating meaningfully at meetings or in any other way interfered with her procedural due process rights, and/or failed to properly address evaluation concerns, maintain inaccurate records, or engaged in conduct that caused Student educational harm. Additionally, the District denies and further questions the authority of the BSEA to address some of Parent’s allegations, specifically those involving retaliation, harassment, employee misconduct, dissemination of pornography, investigative findings, student records, and other matters.
The District also denies that compensatory services are owed, that Student has been denied a FAPE, that it disciplined Student improperly or otherwise violated his IDEA disciplinary rights. With respect to the disciplinary allegation, the District indicated that Student’s placement was not changed and that it was not obligated to convene a MDR, as neither in-school suspensions that did not amount to 10 days or more nor exclusion from a school-sponsored field trip constitutes a disciplinary change in placement. Asserting that, at all times, Student has received educational programming reasonably calculated to enable him to make effective progress in light of the circumstances, South Hadley denies Student’s/Parent’s entitlement to educational relief.
South Hadley’s Motion to Dismiss sought dismissal of claims arising solely under student record regulations, those alleging employee misconduct, dissemination of pornography, falsification of records, retaliation against Parent, harassment of Student, and any other such action on jurisdictional grounds. Similarly, the District challenged the BSEA’s authority to issue stay-away orders or otherwise direct personnel actions and review or overturn District investigative findings. Lastly, South Hadley argued that Parent’s MDR claim fails as a matter of law, because Student’s suspensions did not amount to a removal from his educational placement for 10 consecutive or cumulative days and therefore convening of an MDR consistent with 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.530(e) and 300.536 was never triggered.
On June 11, 2026, Parent filed an Opposition To The District’s Motion to Dismiss (Opposition), seeking that the Motion be denied in its entirety. Parent asserts the BSEA’s jurisdiction to hear all her claims, now asserting that the “10-day staffing gap constitutes a change in placement”, thus disagreeing that a MDR was not mandated because the formal suspension record reflects fewer than ten days of disciplinary removals. Parent asserted that the District’s argument “ignores the doctrine of constructive change in placement”, reasoning that Student’s educational placement was fundamentally altered when his paraprofessional support was not provided for ten days. Parent argued that the BSEA can exert jurisdiction over these types of unilateral placement changes.
Parent’s Opposition further argued that a “forced half-day isolation inside a restrictive ‘reset room’, and an arbitrary exclusion from a landmark four-day school field trip constitute a pattern of disciplinary removals” triggering convening of a MDR. She disagreed that Student’s general education teacher was an adequate substitute for Student’s paraprofessional support, questioning how a teacher could run an entire class while simultaneously providing paraprofessional support.
Parent further asserted the BSEA’s authority over personnel actions that resulted in disciplinary action and deprived Parent of her right to meaningful participation, noting that the actions of school personnel resulted in a denial of FAPE to Student. Parent cited: 1) the science teacher’s abandonment of her responsibilities to provide Student mandated accommodations in his IEP, delegating same to an uncertified substitute teacher; 2) the manner in which the short-term suspension hearing was conducted, denying Parent the right to cross-examine witnesses and review evidence in addition to concealing vital electronic evidence from Parent; and 3) hiring challenges and internal budget constraints.
Parent clarified that she was “not requesting that the Bureau terminate employees or act as a court of criminal law. Rather, the Parent introduces the facts of administrative misconduct-including the fabrication of compliance records, the mischaracterization of an electronic image, and the total lack of transparency- strictly as evidentiary proof of a hostile, non-compliant educational environment that has completely denied the Student FAPE.” Parent further noted that she was seeking: “a finding that the district violated the student’s procedural and substantive right to FAPE; an order for compensatory educational and behavioral services to make up for the 10-day total deprivation of mandated paraprofessional support; [and] an order requiring the District to provide a safe, fully accommodated, and legally compliant educational placement where the student is not subjected to pretextual, or notified disciplinary removals.”
A Hearing on the District’s Motion to Dismiss and Parent’s claim regarding failure to convene a MDR was scheduled to proceed on June 16, 2026. A hearing on the Motion was held as scheduled; however, a hearing on Parent’s MDR claim was not held. For the limited purpose of clarifying Parent’s MDR claim, testimony was taken from four witnesses[1], and the Parties were informed that a Ruling on the Motion to Dismiss would be issued.
Following the Motion Session, on June 17, 2026, Parent filed a Motion to strike the testimony of Mr. Killian and Mr. Martinez on the basis that the Hearing Officer is authorized to pass credibility assessments and these two witnesses provided contradictory evidence regarding the specific incident of February 2, 2026, and therefore should be impeached. Parent requested that the Hearing Officer take administrative notice of an audio recording submitted by Parent as an exhibit for the Hearing on the MDR. Parent reasoned that the audio recording proved that the District’s assertions are unreliable, and since this evidence was central to the ongoing due process hearing, the testimony of two of the witnesses (that of the School Principal at Michael B. Smith Middle School and the Assistant School Principal) should be stricken from the record.
The District filed an Opposition to Parent’s Motion to Strike the Testimony of the School Principal and Assistant School Principal, on June 17, 2026, arguing that the basis for Parent’s request is her belief that certain statements made during the Motion Session were inconsistent with previous statements made outside the Session. The witnesses provided personal first-hand knowledge of factual matters relevant to the claims and defenses at issue. Moreover, both individuals were named by Parent in her list of witnesses.
The District further argued that the appropriate remedy to address inconsistent statements is the opportunity to cross-examine and to proffer arguments regarding the credibility of the particular individual. Both such remedies were available to Parent during the hearing. Lastly, South Hadley explained that testimony of witnesses is stricken when the testimony is inadmissible, irrelevant, or otherwise improperly presented. Here, both witnesses’ testimony was relevant to the issues presented and was based upon their personal knowledge. Therefore, since Parent presented no persuasive argument in support of striking the testimony of these two witnesses, Parent’s Motion should be denied.
Facts[2]:
Facts 1 to 21 reflect information from the pleadings. Facts 22 to 28 reflect only the relevant portions of the witnesses' testimony that clarify Parent’s position. These Facts are considered true only for purposes of this motion.
Facts from Pleadings:
1. Student is a fourteen-year-old eighth grader who carries a diagnosis of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Adjustment Disorder and struggles with self-regulation. He was found eligible for special education and related services in March of 2025 under a Health Disability Category and receives special education services pursuant to an IEP that provides for participation in both general and special education programming.
2. During the 2025-2026 school year, Student attended the Michael E. Smith Middle School in South Hadley. He has been described as an intelligent and capable individual who has developed a close circle of friends.
3. On or about January 22, 2026, Student’s paraprofessional retired. Mother asserts that Student did not have access to his paraprofessional services through the end of the 2025-2026 school year. She further asserts that she was not informed of the paraprofessional’s retirement until after Student’s suspension in February of 2026, surmising that the omission was intentional.
4. On January 28, 2026, Student’s general education math teacher became frustrated with Student’s dysregulation during class and attempted to “forcibly” take a drawing from Student’s hands. Parent reported this incident to the police and asked that Student be removed from the “hostile environment” in math class, which in turn triggered administrative retaliation by South Hadley.
5. Sometime before 12:00 p.m. on February 2, 2026, Student was involved in a behavioral incident in school which led to a three-day suspension. During investigation of the incident, Student met alone with South Hadley’s administrators. On said day, Student was allowed to remain in class/ school until his regular dismissal at 2:30 p.m.
6. At the conclusion of the school day on February 2, 2026, the District executed a disciplinary “Emergency Removal” of Student consisting of a three-day out-of-school suspension (February 3-5), and a “punitive” 1/2 day in school suspension (February 6th).[3] Parent received notice of this disciplinary removal after school ended on February 2, 2026, inferring that this was intended to bypass convening of an MDR.
7. The District rushed Parent into an administrative suspension hearing on or about February 4, 2026, providing Parent less than 30 minutes to prepare, denying her the opportunity to view evidence, present a defense, or question witnesses. Parent asserts that during the hearing the Assistant School Principal confirmed that neither the paraprofessional nor the special education teacher was present on February 2, 2026. Parent demanded that a MDR be conducted and the District declined.
8. Also in her submission, Parent asserts that she learned sometime after February 4, 2026, that both of Student’s special education providers had been absent on February 2, 2026; the paraprofessional had retired in January, and Student’s math special education teacher had “engaged in chronic job absenteeism”. While Parent asserts that this information was not conveyed until after the disciplinary hearing on or about February 4, 2026, the District claimed that Parent had been informed previously.
9. Parent further asserts that in direct violation of 603 CMR 53.08 and 603 CMR 23.00, South Hadley failed to provide her the true office referrals, the reset room logs, and legible witness statements prior to the February 4, 2026, suspension hearing, with the intention of sabotaging her defense of Student.
10. On February 6, 2026, following Parent’s report to the police, South Hadley filed a 51A with the Department of Children and Families (DCF) against Parent.
11. Following the three-day suspension (February 3 to 5), Student did not return to school until February 9, 2026.
12. After a review of Parent’s complaint regarding administrative grievances and allegations regarding staff misconduct and dissemination of pornography, on March 2, 2026, South Hadley’s Superintendent issued a “Notice of Finding”. Via this Notice, Parent’s request to bring in an independent third-party investigator was declined.
13. On March 6, 2026, Student eloped from his science class after suffering “an acute trauma-induced flight response”. He was left unsupervised, and for 25 minutes his whereabouts were unknown. Parent did not learn of this incident until the District’s internal logs were produced.
14. As a result of the behavioral incident on February 2, 2026, Student was not allowed to participate in a school trip to Washington, D.C., which took place March 24 through 27, 2026. Parent asserts that the Washington, D. C. school trip exclusion constitutes a four-day constructive suspension. When Parent again requested that a MDR be convened, South Hadley refused.
15. The informational packet explaining the purpose of the Washington, D.C. trip characterized the trip as “official academic school days” during which instruction meeting “the National Common Core and Massachusetts Curriculum Standards” would be delivered. According to Parent, Student was blocked from accessing his general education curriculum by being prevented from going on the trip.
16. Parent asserts that Student was repeatedly punished for behavioral crises that were a direct manifestation of his documented disabilities and resulted from the District’s failure to offer the paraprofessional support to which Student is entitled.
17. Student’s IEP expired in March of 2026. His annual IEP review meeting was scheduled for May 19, 2026, but the meeting ended five minutes later after Parent stated that she was recording the meeting. Moreover, Student, who is 14 years old, was excluded from this meeting. Parent asserts that the District “withheld all draft IEP paperwork” from her prior to the meeting to “sanitize the record and scrub the Parent’s voice regarding active service gaps and outstanding independent educational evaluation from Learning Solutions. The school principal attended this meeting as the District’s representative, which was a ‘calculated act of parental intimidation’”.
18. The N1 resulting from the May 19, 2026, meeting documents “a completely fabricated version of the [], meeting, falsely claiming a breakdown in collaboration to justify the administrative lockout” of the meeting. Bypassing the IEP Team process and without parental input, behavioral contacts were imposed on Student without supporting medical or psychological evaluations.
19. Parent states that the District maintains fraudulent, false student records in contravention of 603 CMR 23.09 and FERPA (34 CFR §99.20) and that it has engaged in disability-based harassment, retaliation, and hostile environment Section 504 violations, citing to 34 CFR §100.7(e). She filed a Program Resolution System (PRS) complaint with the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, after which the District was compelled to provide the records requested by Parent.
20. Parent states that the District’s cumulative failures resulted in Student spending “the entire school year completely undiagnosed, stripped of necessary updated accommodations and without critical evaluations.” This systematic blocking of the evaluation process violated Child Find obligations.
21. Student was forced to finish the school year under extreme duress.
Facts from Testimony:
22. Participation in the Washington, D.C. trip was available to the general education student population for a fee. During the days of the trip, in-district regularly scheduled educational programming was delivered to the students unable to participate in the school trip, including access to special education interventions where appropriate. This year, students who did not attend the school trip also participated in a one-day excursion to the Springfield Science Museum, in Springfield, Massachusetts. The in-school instruction and excursion experiences replicated those provided to the students who went on the Washington, D.C. trip (Martinez).
23. Student was disqualified from attending the Washington, D.C. trip because he did not meet the behavioral requirements as a result of the three-day suspension in February of 2026 (Martinez, Killian).
24. As part of the February 2, 2026, administrative incident investigation, Student was removed from his class at the end of the day for approximately ten to fifteen minutes (Martinez, Killian). That same day, he also went to the Re-set Room during one of his classes.
25. The Re-set Room is available to all general and special education students alike who request time outside the classroom to perform restorative work and to self-regulate (Kennedy, Killian). Students never spend more than fifteen minutes in this setting before they return to their regularly scheduled classes. Time for each student is kept with a designated timer to ensure that their stay does not exceed fifteen minutes. Students may request to return to class before the fifteen minutes are up (Kennedy, Killian).
26. Students returning to school following suspensions spend half a day at the Re-set Room to help with their re-entry. There is a second room connected to the Re-set Room, where students serving in-school suspensions complete schoolwork (Martinez, Kennedy).
27. Student voluntarily accessed the Re-set Room on several occasions during the 2025-2026 school year, consistent with his IEP accommodations. Each visit lasted no more than fifteen minutes as he was sent back to class when his timer rang (Kennedy). On one occasion in 2026, Student was still dysregulated after the fifteen minutes, and he went on to meet with his counselor (Kennedy).
28. On February 6, 2026, Student was supposed to access the Re-set Room for half a day as re-entry following a three-day suspension (however, he was absent from school on that day). On or about March 4 or 6, 2026, Student was assigned a half-day, in-school suspension and on that day he opted and was allowed to remain in the Re-set Room area while serving this suspension (Martinez, Kennedy, Killian).
Legal Standards:
Dismissal:
Rule XVII (A) and (B) of the BSEA Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals and the Standard Rules of Adjudicatory Practice and Procedure[4], at 801 CMR 1.01(7)(g)(3), authorize BSEA hearing officers to consider and allow a motion to dismiss for good cause, for lack of jurisdiction or when the party requesting the hearing fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.[5] When deciding motions to dismiss, BSEA hearing officers are often guided by the standards courts use for these motions.
To survive a motion to dismiss, there must exist “factual ‘allegations plausibly suggesting (not merely consistent with)’ an entitlement to relief.”[6] In evaluating a motion to dismiss, 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.”[7] If the pleadings so viewed fail to support a plausible claim for relief, the case may be dismissed.[8] To survive dismissal, the “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”[9]
BSEA Jurisdiction:
The jurisdiction of the Massachusetts BSEA is limited to the grant of authority pursuant to 20 USC §1415(b)(6); M.G.L. c.71B §2A; 34 CFR 300.507(a)(1); 603 CMR 28.08 (3); and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Specifically, under the above-cited provisions, the BSEA may adjudicate disputes “among school districts, private schools, parents and state agencies”[10]. See G.L. c. 71B §2A and 603 CMR 28.08(3). In pertinent part, 603 CMR 28.08(3) provides that the BSEA may hear controversies involving
“… 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.”[11]
Manifestation Determination Review:
The IDEA requires that all eligible disabled students receive a FAPE[12], including compliance with procedural safeguards designed to protect the rights of parents and students,[13] ensuring meaningful parental participation.[14]
The specific process which school districts must follow when taking disciplinary action against an eligible student for violations of the school’s code of conduct is described at 20 USC § 1415 (k)(1)(B) and (C), which 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.[15]
Students who are removed from their educational school placement for more than 10 school days in a school year must be provided educational services.[16]
Following disciplinary removals amounting to 10 school days, and prior to initiating any additional disciplinary action, the school district must convene a meeting 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])” [17] to conduct a manifestation determination review (MDR)[18].
The IDEA further requires that the school district notify the parent before taking disciplinary action against the student. When an MDR is convened, Parent must be provided with procedural safeguards including the right to appeal the MDR determination. I Massachusetts, said appeal would be made to the BSEA.[19]
Lastly, Students found eligible to receive special education services are not only entitled to the substantive components of a FAPE, but they are also entitled to the procedural protections of the IDEA. These safeguards are designed to support the parent-school collaboration envisioned by federal and state special education law. Procedural protections serve a dual purpose: to ensure that each eligible child receives a FAPE, and to provide for meaningful parental participation.[20]
Massachusetts has adopted the IDEA, and specifically, the federal standards involving discipline of eligible students through M.G.L. c.71B and implementing regulations at 603 CMR 28.08(11) et seq.
603 CMR 53.11:
The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education promulgated standards applicable to all public preschools, elementary, and secondary schools as well as other programs including charter and virtual schools to address the effect of offenses subject to M.G.L. 71, § 37H¾, as set forth in 603 CMR 53.01(2)(a), to limit the use of long-term suspension as a consequence for student misconduct until other consequences have been considered and tried as appropriate.
Specifically, 603 CMR 53.11delineates removal of privileges and exclusion of participation in extracurricular activities and school-sponsored events,
The principal may remove a student from privileges, such as extracurricular activities and attendance at school-sponsored events, based on the student's misconduct. Such a removal is not subject to the procedures in M.G.L. c. 71, § 37H¾ or 603 CMR 53.00.
Discussion:
South Hadley asserts that Parent’s MDR claim fails as a matter of law, and as such, this claim must be dismissed. The District also seeks dismissal of other parental claims on jurisdictional grounds. As this is a Motion to Dismiss, I consider the pleadings, including the allegations of the complaint, as well as any inferences that may be drawn therefrom, in Parent’s favor.
I first turn to Parent’s MDR claim.
South Hadley argues that this claim fails as a matter of law, because Student’s suspensions did not amount to a removal from his educational placement for 10 consecutive or cumulative days, and as such did not trigger the District’s responsibility to convene a MDR pursuant to 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.530(e) and 300.536.
Parent’s Hearing Request and Amended Hearing Request allege that Student was suspended three days in February of 2026, another half-a-day on February 6, and a half-a-day in early March 2026. Those suspensions amount to four days. Additionally, Parent asserts that Student’s constructive exclusion from the Washington, D.C. trip, which amounts to an additional four days, also constitutes a suspension, thereby triggering the MDR. Even assuming, arguendo, that Parent’s assertion is correct, the aforementioned events amount to a total of eight (8) exclusions.
At the Motion Session, Parent argued that the administration’s removal of Student from class on February 2, 2026, to conduct the investigation, together with another removal to help Student regulate, should be considered arbitrary exclusions, for purposes of the 10-day count. Parent reasoned that the February 2, 2026, exclusion combined with all other exclusions triggered the MDR. Even if the February 2 and early March 2026 partial exclusions[21], were to be counted, the totality of those exclusions would amount to no more than nine days, and South Hadley would not have been required to convene an MDR.
During the Motion Session Parent also argued that every time Student accessed the Re-set Room, the time spent therein constituted disciplinary exclusions. This argument was not raised in the pleadings, and it is wholly unpersuasive as it completely disregards Student’s IEP, which calls for him to have access the Re-set Room when feeling dysregulated. An IEP intervention specifically designed to address a student’s disability is not an exclusion.
I next address Parent’s argument that Student’s exclusion from the Washington D.C. trip was a disciplinary exclusion and should be counted toward the ten-day removal limit. The trip was available to students in the general student population with good behavioral standing. 603 CMR 53.11 specifically grants a school principal authority to remove privileges and exclude students from attending school-sponsored events, such as the Washington, D.C. trip, based on a student's misconduct. Said regulation specifically provides that such removals are not subject to the procedures in M.G.L. c. 71, § 37H¾ or 603 CMR 53.00. However, 603 CMR 53.11 does not specifically reference M.G.L. c. 71B. As such, a school principal’s authority to remove the privileges of a M.G.L. 71B and/ or Section 504 eligible student would need to be exercised consistent with the eligible student’s IEP and/or Section 504 plan. Nothing in the IDEA or 603 CMR 28.11 provides that IDEA- or Section 504-eligible students are insulated from having privileges removed for behavioral misconduct. Their privileges may be removed by the school principal so long as this action is not contrary to the student’s individualized plan, the student’s access to a FAPE, and any other applicable IDEA requirements.
Here, the school principal excluded Student from the trip because Student did not meet the requirement for participation applicable to all participants, independent of whether or not they were IDEA eligible. Student received his regularly scheduled programming and special education services, as did other classmates who did not go on the trip; thus, Student was not denied a FAPE. The four days of the trip do not constitute a disciplinary exclusion in the context of the IDEA and therefore, should not be counted for purposes of convening an MDR.
Neither Parent’s Hearing Request nor the Amended Hearing Request allege facts that support her claim that Student was subjected to disciplinary removals exceeding ten days or that the removals amounted to a change in placement that triggered South Hadley’s responsibility to convene an MDR.[22] As such, the District’s Motion to Dismiss the MDR claim is ALLOWED.
Next, I turn to South Hadley’s jurisdictional challenges with respect to other issues raised in Parent’s Hearing Request.
South Hadley is correct that the limited authority of the BSEA does not grant jurisdiction over claims arising solely under student record regulations, specifically 603 CMR 23.09 (the Massachusetts Student Records Regulation) cited by Parent. The BSEA, however, has jurisdiction to resolve disputes involving exchanges of information responsive to discovery requests arising during the pendency of litigation.[23]
The BSEA also lacks jurisdiction to address criminal misconduct claims involving alleged employee misbehavior, dissemination of pornography or falsification of records.
Similarly, the BSEA lacks jurisdiction to address claims involving retaliation or harassment unrelated to education, whether under the IDEA or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Acts of 1973, as the BSEA’s jurisdiction under both statutes is limited to education.
The BSEA also lacks authority to issue stay-away orders preventing South Hadley staff from having “physical, visual or verbal contact” with Student, or otherwise direct personnel actions including overturning the District’s investigative findings. Nothing in the authority vested in BSEA Hearing Officers permits them to “supervise, direct staffing assignments, restrict employee duties or issue personnel-related injunctions against individual employees.”
As such, Parent’s claims referenced above, must be dismissed. South Hadley’s Motion to Dismiss the above-referenced claims on jurisdictional grounds is ALLOWED.
The remainder of Parent’s claims which were not the subject of this Motion to Dismiss may proceed to Hearing on August 5 and 7, 2026, consistent with the Order granting the District’s request for postponement of the Hearing issued on June 18, 2026.
Lastly, I turn to Parent’s Motion to strike the testimony of the School Principal and the Assistant School Principal. Parent’s reliance on misstatements made during a contentious discussion in a recorded Team meeting provides no basis for striking the testimony of these witnesses, especially where the witnesses subsequently corrected the statements and clarified the record. Such corrected misstatements do not establish that the witnesses provided false sworn testimony. Instead, the inconsistencies identified by Parent may be considered by the Hearing Officer in assessing the credibility of the witnesses and in determining what weight to afford their testimony.
The District is correct that testimony is stricken when it is irrelevant, inadmissible, or improperly presented. During the Motion Session, both witnesses testified under oath and were the subject of direct and cross-examination. The weight accorded the testimony of the two witnesses at issue falls within the discretion of the undersigned Hearing Officer as the testimony is reviewed/assessed for purposes of the instant ruling. Parent presented no persuasive argument to support striking the entire testimony of the two in question. Ironically, Parent’s Motion would only serve to dissolve the alleged inconsistency forming the basis of her credibility argument.
As such, Parent’s Motion is DENIED, and the testimony of the two witnesses to whom Parent objected is ALLOWED.
ORDER:
1. South Hadley’s Motion to Dismiss Parent’s MDR claim is ALLOWED, and as such Parent’s claim in this regard is DISMISSED with prejudice.
2. The District’s Motion to Dismiss portions of Parent’s Hearing Request on jurisdictional grounds, as delineated supra, is ALLOWED. As such, those claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. Identification of the remaining claims will be handled separately.
3. Parent’s Motion to strike the testimony of the School Principal and the Assistant School Principal is DENIED.
So Ordered by the Hearing Officer,
Rosa I. Figueroa
Rosa I. Figueroa
Dated: July 14, 2026
Footnotes
[1] The four witnesses were Parent, Luis Martinez (School Principal at Michael B. Smith Middle School), Mathew Killian (Assistant School Principal) and Shaniece Kennedy (ETA at the Re-set Room).
[2] The following facts are taken as true for purposes of this Ruling only. I take those facts pled by Parent 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).
[3] Student did not attend school on February 6, 2026.
[4] 801 Code Mass Regs 1.01 et seq.
[5] These rules are analogous to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal and Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure.
[6] Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623, 636 (2008) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007)).
[7] Blank v. Chelmsford Ob/Gyn.C., 420 Mass. 404, 407 (1995).
[8] Tomaselli v. Beaulieu, No. 08-CV-10666-PBS, 2010WL2105347, at 3* (D. Mass. May 7, 2010); Gargano v. Liberty Intern. Underwriters, Inc. 572 F. 3d 45, 49 (1st Cir. 2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 559, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1967 (2007)); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (discussing the plausibility standard).
[9] Golchin v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 460 Mass. 222, 223 (2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
[10] 603 CMR 28.08(3).
[11] 603 CMR 28.08(3).
[12] 20 USC §1400 (D)(1)(A).
[13] 20 USC §1415 (f)(3)(E)(ii); 34 CFR 300.513 (a)(2).
[14] See Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 3050 (1982).
[15] See 34 CFR 300.530 et seq.; see also, 603 CMR 28.11.
[16] See 20 USC § 1415 (k)(1)(D); see also 34 CFR 300.530(b)(2) and (d)(1)-(5).
[17] See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(E)(i); 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(e)(1). 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”, consistent with 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(E)(i) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(e)(1), 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.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(E)(i)(I)–(II); 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(e)(1)(i)–(ii). The answer to those questions determines the manner in which a student may be disciplined and the Team’s additional responsibilities. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(C); 20 U.S.C. §1415(k)(1)(F)(i) and (ii); and 20 U.S.C. §1415(k)(1)(F)(iii); See also 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(c) and 34 CFR § 300.530(g).
[18] 20 U.S.C. §1415(k)(1)(E) and 34 CFR 300.530(e).
[19] See 20 U.S.C. §1415(k)(1)(H).
[20] See 20 U.S.C. §1415(b)(3)(A) and (B).
[21] The second exclusion Parent referenced during the Motion Session.
[22] The testimony of District witnesses during the Motion Session served only to corroborate the aforementioned conclusion. To the extent that the testimony of Mr. Martinez, Mr. Killian and Ms. Kennedy served to clarify the number of suspension days which Student was administered, the behavioral requirements for disqualification criteria for the Washington D.C. trip, and the purpose, use and function of the Re-set Room and Student’s access of this location, I find their testimony to be credible.
[23] During the Motion Session Parent’s Request for certain documents in the context of discovery was addressed and the District was ordered to produce them.