THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Student v. Westborough Public Schools
BSEA # 2614665
RULING ON PARENTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TО ENFORCE STAY-PUT AND OVERRULE UNILATERAL REDISTRICTING ASSIGNMENT; AND ON WESTBOROUGH PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
On June 1, 2026, Parents filed a Hearing Request with the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) and Parents' Emergency Motion tо Enforce Stay-Put and Overrule Unilateral Redistricting Assignment (Parents’ Stay-Put Motion) against the Westborough Public Schools (Westborough or District). Parents, who are pro se, alleged that Westborough violated Student’s rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) as follows. Despite a fully accepted, active individualized education program (IEP) specifying placement at Hastings Elementary School through February 10, 2027, Westborough announced that, as part of a district-wide administrative redistricting plan, it intended to reassign Student to a different elementary school. This was done without an IEP Team meeting or parental agreement, thereby violating Student’s stay-put protections. Parents requested emergency relief[1] to prevent the reassignment from taking effect, contending that maintaining Student’s current placement was medically and educationally necessary due to his reliance on the established school environment, support systems, and continuity with his sibling during a particularly vulnerable period for the family.
On June 5, 2026, Parents filed Parents’ Supplemental Whole Child Impact Statement In Support of Emergency Motion to Enforce Stay‑Put, reiterating that Student’s disability-related needs require a highly predictable, stable educational environment in order for him to access a free appropriate public education (FAPE), as clinical evaluations and school records have consistently documented his significant anxiety, withdrawal, internalizing symptoms, and difficulty adapting to change. According to Parents, transferring Student to a different elementary school would predictably cause emotional dysregulation, regression, increased anxiety, and loss of educational access. In addition, Parents asserted that the District failed to convene the required IEP Team meeting before proposing a change in placement and instead conducted internal transition planning meetings after informing Parents those meetings had been canceled. Parents argued this excluded them from meaningful participation in educational decision-making.
On June 11, 2026, Westborough filed Public Schools' Motion to Dismiss (Motion to Dismiss), asserting that nothing in Student’s IEP requires him to remain at Hastings Elementary School as his educational placement, and that Fales Elementary School is fully capable of providing the services required in his IEP. Accordingly, the reassignment does not constitute a change in Student’s educational placement, and Parents cannot invoke stay-put as to Student’s school assignment. As such, the District requested that the BSEA dismiss the instant matter.
On June 26, 2026, Parents filed Parents' Emergency Motion Regarding Ongoing Violations, Continuing Harm, and Failure to Comply With Required Procedures, alleging that Westborough failed to provide individualized notice or convene Student’s Team before initiating the proposed reassignment, and that Parents first learned of the redistricting through another parent rather than through formal District communication. Parents further alleged that the District predetermined Student’s reassignment based on administrative redistricting decisions without considering Student’s disability-related needs, sibling continuity, or other individualized factors required under special education law and Massachusetts' Whole Child framework. They further challenged the District's issuance of a transition field trip permission slip identifying Fales Elementary as Student’s future school while the stay-put dispute remained pending, arguing that this constituted an improper attempt to implement a placement change without prior written notice, an IEP Team decision, or parental participation.
On July 21, 2026, Parents filed Parents’ Opposition To Westborough Public Schools’ Motion To Dismiss Hearing Request And Supplemental Motion For Immediate Stay-Put Order,[2] arguing that their hearing request presents substantial legal and factual issues regarding Student’s right to remain at Hastings Elementary School under his accepted IEP and the IDEA's stay-put protections. Parents again asserted that the physical school environment was an essential component of Student’s educational program because of his documented developmental disability, significant anxiety, internalizing symptoms, somatic responses to stress, and difficulty adapting to change, and that the District failed to consider disability-related needs during its redistricting process, disregarding the need for family stability, sibling continuity, and minimizing Student’s transitions. Additionally, they noted that the District predetermined Student’s reassignment, excluded Parents from transition planning meetings, and continued implementing transition activities while the stay-put dispute remained pending.
As neither party requested a hearing on the Motions, and as testimony or oral argument would not advance the Hearing Officer's understanding of the issues involved, this Ruling is issued without a hearing, pursuant to Bureau of Special Education Appeals Hearing Rule VI(D).
RELEVANT FACTS[3] AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
1. Student is a rising second-grade student who attended first grade at Hastings Elementary School in Westborough, Massachusetts.
2. Student is eligible for special education services due to a developmental delay.
3. Student’s fully accepted IEP covers the period from 2/11/2026 to 2/10/2027 and calls for his participation in a full-inclusion setting. The IEP indicates that the location of Student’s services is Hastings Elementary School.
4. Pursuant to this fully accepted IEP, Student receives Grid A monthly consultation services by the special education teacher (1x30 minutes), occupational therapist (1x15 minutes), and school psychologist (1x30 minutes); Grid B academic/behavior support in his general education classroom (5x120 minutes per 5-day cycle); and the following C grid services: social competency 1X30 per 5-day cycle; occupational therapy 2X30 per 5-day cycle and counselling 1X30 per 5-day cycle.
5. On February 25, 2026, the Westborough School Committee approved a town-wide K-3 redistricting plan, shifting Student's street boundary from Hastings Elementary School to Fales Elementary School.
6. On March 11, 2026, the District issued a ParentSquare redistricting update.
7. On April 29, 2026, the District issued a Meeting Invitation for a Reconvene Team Meeting for Student to take place on May 26, 2026.On May 11, 2026, Parents submitted a written request to the Superintendent seeking to prevent Student’s reassignment from Hastings to Fales Elementary School.
8. On May 13, the District declined this request on the basis that Fales is fully capable of implementing Student’s IEP. Parents have not refuted this assertion.
9. On or about May 19, 2026, Parents formally invoked Stay-Put to Student’s placement at Hastings.
10. On May 20, 2026, Parents requested an Emergency IEP Team Meeting.
11. Via email dated May 22, 2026, the Director of Special Education for the District refused Parents’ assertion of Stay-Put. She wrote,
Accordingly, we do not intend to convene the Team to discuss placement, as stay-put rights do not apply to a change in school location. Fales is able to fully implement Student’s IEP. Additionally, the Team has already discussed and addressed this change in school assignment with you earlier this year. As this transition has been known for some time, we expect that it has been addressed within your household and are confident that, through the thoughtful school-based transition planning and continued partnership between your family and the school team, [Student] will be well supported in his transition to Fales.
12. On May 26, 2026, the District issued a "Field Trip Permission Form" for a June 22 Step-Up visit to Fales. Parents withheld their consent to this Field Trip.
13. According to Parents, the District canceled the May 26, 2026 Team meeting with them, however, met without Parents to discuss Student’s transition to Fales.
14. On May 28, 2026, the District’s Special Education Director wrote to Parents stating, in part,
As a note of clarification, since I may have been unclear in my previous email: if you would like to meet to discuss [Student’s] placement (which is considered a full inclusion placement), the team is glad to do so. However, because school assignment is an administrative function that falls outside the IEP team's purview, the focus will be on his programming and transition plan rather than the building assignment itself.
15. On July 11, 2026, Parents obtained a Clinical Assessment from Bright Path Behavioral Health stating, in part, that a building transition at that time risked regression for Student (as well as a physical deterioration for Mother).
16. Although eligible for Extended School Year Services (ESY), Student has not attended ESY at Fales.
LEGAL STANDARDS AND APPLICATION OF LEGAL STANDARDS[4]:
1) Stay Put:
The IDEA’s “stay put” provision requires that unless the State or local educational agency and the parents otherwise agree, during the time that a parent and school district are engaged in an IDEA dispute resolution process, “… the child shall remain in the then-current educational placement of the child, or, if applying for initial admission to a public school, shall, with the consent of the parents, be placed in the public school program until all such proceedings have been completed.”[5] Preservation of the “status quo” assures that the student “stays put” in the last placement the parents and the school district agreed was appropriate for her.[6] In addition, the stay put provision reflects “the preference of Congress for maintaining the stability of a disabled child’s placement and minimizing disruption to the child while the parents and school are resolving disputes.”[7] Generally, a student’s last accepted IEP dictates student’s stay put rights.[8] To determine a child’s “stay put,” Courts often look for the “operative placement,” or the IEP that is “actually functioning at the time the dispute first arises.”[9]
Moreover, it is well established that the “physical school alone does not constitute an ‘educational placement.’ [An] educational placement consists of the instruction and services spelled out in [Student’s] IEP.”[10] According to the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), case-by-case analysis is required to determine whether a change in location materially or substantially alters a student's program, thereby constituting a change in placement, with the analysis based on whether 1) the IEP is being revised concurrently; 2) Student will be educated with nondisabled peers to the same extent in the new program; 3) Student will have the same opportunities to participate in extracurricular and nonacademic services; and 4) the new location is the same option on the continuum of alternative placements.[11] In March of 2026, a U.S. District Court judge for the District of Massachusetts found that where a school district proposed a change in location due to residential zoning and the receiving school could implement the accepted IEP and the transfer was not a “significant change in the student's program,” the parent was “not entitled to Prior Written Notice as defined by IDEA, nor to a role in the assignment process in relocating Student.”[12]
In general, Courts have held that a change in placement for this purpose occurs when "a fundamental change in, or elimination of, a basic element of the educational program has occurred,"[13] or when a change in location "results in dilution of the quality of a student's education or a departure from the student's LRE [least restrictive environment]-compliant setting."[14] "[M]inor decision[s] alter[ing] the school day" such as modifications to the method of transportation to and from school or replacing one teacher or aide with another do not constitute changes in placement that would violate the stay put provision.[15] Changes in programs or classrooms do not constitute changes in placement, either, where the school district provides "substantially similar classes."[16]
Moreover, the BSEA has determined that “potential transition concerns do not solely determine whether a move constitutes a change in placement, as transition difficulties alone do not constitute ‘a fundamental change in, or elimination of, a basic element of the education program’ so as to qualify as a change in placement. Thus, while Parent’s concerns are wholly understandable, they are challenges that must be anticipated and addressed by the receiving school, particularly as the District has proposed an appropriate transition plan to support Student in the new setting.”[17]
In deciding issues of stay put, Courts have examined the impact of the proposed change on the student rather than the precise classroom location.[18] Similarly, the BSEA has applied these principles to identify the “operative placement” and to examine the impact on the student of the proposed change.[19]
2) Motion to Dismiss:
Pursuant to Hearing Rule XVI(A) and (B) of the Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals and 801 CMR 1.01(7)(g)(3)[20], a BSEA hearing officer may allow a motion to dismiss if the party requesting the hearing fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The aforementioned rules are analogous to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As such, hearing officers have generally used the same standards as the courts in deciding motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. To survive a motion to dismiss, there must exist “factual ‘allegations plausibly suggesting (not merely consistent with)’ an entitlement to relief.”[21]
In deciding motions 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.”[22] In the instant matter, the allegations in Parents’ Hearing Request are taken as true and all inferences are drawn in Parents’ favor. These “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”[23]
Application of Legal Standards:
In the instant matter the threshold issue is whether the District’s redistricting constitutes a unilateral change in placement sufficient to trigger Student’s stay-put rights. The first step in this analysis is to identify Student’s “then current” placement at the time the dispute arose.[24]
Here, Student’s current placement includes participation in a full inclusion setting with the following services: monthly consultation services by the special education teacher (1x30 minutes), occupational therapist (1x15 minutes), and school psychologist (1x30 minutes); academic/behavior support in his general education classroom (5x120 minutes per 5-day cycle); and Social Competency (1x30 minutes per 5-day cycle), Counseling (1x30 minutes per 5-day cycle), Occupational Therapy (2x30 minutes per 5-day cycle) services outside the general education setting.
In February 2026, the Team identified the location of Student’s program to be Hastings Elementary School. However, as discussed supra, it is well established that a physical location (i.e., Hastings Elementary School), alone, does not constitute an educational placement; rather, an educational placement is defined by the services and instruction set forth in the student’s IEP. [25]
The Parties agree that Student is entitled to participation in a full inclusion program with the services delineated in his IEP. Moreover, Parents do not contend that Student’s full-inclusion IEP services cannot be provided at another Westborough elementary school. Nor have they alleged that the proposed reassignment would eliminate or fundamentally alter any of the educational services or instructional components required by Student’s IEP. [26] Rather, Parents maintain that transferring Student to Fales Elementary School would disrupt his progress, undermine his emotional stability, and result in educational and behavioral regression. Those concerns are supported by the District's own evaluations, which acknowledge that Student "requires significant reassurance and adult support to navigate his daily routines and academic tasks" and that his disability "will impact his comfort and participation in unfamiliar situations and settings." [27]
Nevertheless, under the IDEA, the stay-put analysis focuses on whether the proposed change would materially or substantially modify the student's educational program as described in the IEP, not whether a different school environment may be more challenging for the student.[28] Because Parents' claims center on the anticipated effects of the school transfer rather than a change to Student's IEP services or program,[29] Hastings Elementary School cannot be considered Student's stay-put placement for purposes of this dispute. Accordingly, Student is not entitled to remain at Hastings under the IDEA's stay-put provision while this matter is pending. Parents’ stay-put claim is therefore Dismissed with Prejudice.
Moreover, because Student’s redistricting reassignment to Fales Elementary School does not constitute a change in educational placement,[30] for the reasons explained supra, Parents' related claims that the District was required to provide individualized notice or convene the IEP Team before implementing the reassignment are likewise Dismissed with Prejudice.
Parents also claim that the District predetermined Student’s reassignment. I find that this claim must also be dismissed, as it presumes a legal right that neither state nor federal regulations confer on Parents, to wit: a role in the school reassignment decision. The IDEA requires that "a group of persons, including the parents, and other persons knowledgeable about the child, the evaluation data, and the placement options" make placement decisions.[31] Pursuant to 603 CMR 28.06(2)(a), the “decision regarding placement shall be based on the IEP, including the types of related services that are to be provided to the student, the type of settings in which those services are to be provided, the types of service providers, and the location at which the services are to be provided.”[32] However, read in conjunction with 34 CFR 300.116’s instruction that the educational placement of a student with a disability shall be "as close as possible to the child's home…unless the IEP of a child with a disability requires some other arrangement, the child is educated in the school he or she would attend if nondisabled", the phrase, “the location at which services are to be provided,” emphasizes geographical distance of schools capable of implementing the IEP, not specific school assignments based on parental preference.[33] To the extent that, per Westborough’s redistricting plan, Fales Elementary School is Student’s neighborhood school and Student’s IEP can be implemented at Fales, Parents had no role in such school assignment. Even taking as true “the allegations of the complaint, as well as such inferences as may be drawn therefrom in the [Parents’] favor,”[34] I cannot find that there is “an entitlement to relief”[35] relative to this claim; because Parents were not entitled to be part of the school assignment process, they were not denied meaningful participation when they were excluded therefrom. As such, Parents’ claim that the District predetermined Student’s reassignment is Dismissed with Prejudice.
To the extent that Parents claim they were excluded from the IEP Team meeting scheduled for May 26, 2026, or any other Team meetings to discuss Student’s transition, such exclusion is a possible violation of the IDEA and as such, Parents are entitled to proceed to hearing on this claim.
As such, Westborough’s Motion to Dismiss is Allowed in Part.
ORDER:
1) Parents’ Stay-Put Motion is DENIED.
2) Westborough’s Motion to Dismiss is ALLOWED, in Part. The Hearing Request is dismissed with prejudice as to Parents’ stay-put and predetermination claims, but without prejudice as to any future FAPE/IEP-based claims with regard to the change from Hastings Elementary School to Fales Elementary School. In addition, Parents may proceed to hearing on their claim relative to their alleged exclusion from the May 26, 2026, IEP Team meeting, or from any other Team meetings to discuss Student’s transition.
So Ordered by the Hearing Officer,
Rosa I. Figueroa
Rosa I. Figueroa
Dated: July 31, 2026
Footnotes
[1] On June 2, 2026, Parents’ Hearing Request was found not to meet the standard for expedited and/or accelerated hearing status.
[2] The Parties had previously agreed to defer Parents’ response to the Motion to Dismiss until after the mediation held on July 13, 2026.
[3] The following facts are derived from the pleadings and are presumed to be true only for purposes of this Ruling. I take the facts pled by Parents 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).
[4] In applying the legal standards set out infra to the instant matter, I bear in mind that complaints filed by pro se parties, as is the case here, are to be construed liberally. Ahmed v. Rosenblatt, 118 F.3d 886, 890 (1st Cir. 1997). As explained by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, “[t]he policy behind affording pro se plaintiffs liberal interpretation is that if they present sufficient facts [to state a claim], the Court may intuit the correct cause of action, even if it was imperfectly pled.” (Id.). This principle aligns with “[o]ur judicial system [, which] zealously guards the attempts of pro se litigants on their own behalf” while not ignoring the need for compliance with procedural and substantive law. (Id.).
[5] 20 U.S.C. §1415(j); see 34 CFR §300.514; M.G.L. c. 71B; 603 CMR 28.08(7); see Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 325 (1988); Verhoven v. Brunswick School Committee, 207 F.3d 1, 10 (1st Cir. 1999); M.R. and J.R. v. Ridley School District, 744 F.3d 112, 117 (3d Cir. 2014); see also In Re: Framingham Public Schools and Quin, BSEA # 1605247 (Reichbach, 2016); In Re: Abington Public Schools, BSEA # 1407763 (Figueroa, 2014).
[6] See Doe v. Brookline School Committee, 722 F.2d 910, 918 (1st Cir. 1983).
[7] Student & Concord & Natick Public Schools (Corrected Ruling on Mother’s Request for “Stay Put” Order), BSEA # 18-00182 (Berman, 2017).
[8] See 20 U.S.C. §1415(j); 34 CFR §300.514.
[9] Drinker v. Colonial Sch. Dist., 73 F.3d 859, 867 (3rd Cir. 1996); Thomas v. Cincinnati Bd. of Edu., 918 F. 2d 618. 626 (6th Cir., 1990).
[10] D.K. v. D.C., 983 F. Supp. 2d 138, 146 (D.D.C. 2013); see Vaudo v. Revere Pub. Schs., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45355 at *20 (March 5, 2026) ( “[Student]’s educational placement is the IGNITE program, not the IGNITE classroom at [Original School]”).
[11] Letter to Fisher, 21 IDELR 992 (OSEP 1994).
[12] Vaudo v Revere Public Schools, No. 1:25-cv-13793-JEK (D. Mass., Mar. 5, 2026); 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45355 at *20.
[13] Sherri A.D. v. Kirby, 975 F.2d 193, 206 (5th Cir. 1992).
[14] A.W. v. Fairfax County Sch. Bd., 372 F.3d 674, 682 (4th Cir. 1991).
[15] G.B. v. Distr. of Columbia, 78 F. Supp. 3d 109, 116 (D.D.C. 2015).
[16] Weil v. Bd. of Elem. & Sec. Educ., 931 F.2d, 1069, 1072 (5th Cir. 1991).
[17] In Re: Revere Public Schools, BSEA # 2604601 (Kantor Nir, 2025).
[18] See A.W., 372 F.3d at 681–83 (concluding that educational placement referred to an “instructional setting” rather than to the “precise location of that setting” or the “precise physical location where the disabled student is educated”).
[19] See In Re: Agawam Public Schools and Melmark-New England (Ruling), BSEA # 1504488 (Berman, 2015).
[20] Hearing Officers are bound by the BSEA Hearing Rules and the Standard Rules of Adjudicatory Practice and Procedure, 801 Code Mass Regs 1.01.
[21] Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623, 636 (2008) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007)).
[22] Blank v. Chelmsford Ob/Gyn, P.C., 420 Mass. 404, 407 (1995).
[23] Golchin v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 460 Mass. 222, 223 (2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
[24] In Doe v. Portland Pub. Schs., 30 F.4th 85, 91 (1st Cir. 2022), the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit defined “then-current placement” as “the last placement that the parents and the educational authority agreed to be appropriate.” See also In Re: Agawam Public Schools and Melmark-New England (Ruling), BSEA # 1504488 (Berman, 2015) (“The critical question is identifying the child’s ‘then current placement,’ because not every alteration in a child’s educational services constitutes a change in such placement”)
[25] D.K. v. D.C., 983 F. Supp. 2d 138, 146 (D.D.C. 2013).
[26] Lunceford v. D.C. Bd. of Educ., 745 F.2d 1577, 1582 (D.C.Cir.1984).
[27] I do not address Parents’ concerns regarding the impact of the transfer on the family as such analysis is not relevant here.
[28] See In Re: Revere Public Schools, BSEA# 26-04601 (Kantor Nir, 2025); see also White ex rel. White v. Ascension Par. Sch. Bd., 343 F.3d 373, 383 (5th Cir. 2003) (parents improperly “conflate[d] site selection and educational placement”).
[29] See In Re: Revere Public Schools, BSEA# 26-04601 (Kantor Nir, 2025) (although “[m]ore recent decisions in other circuits have elaborated on this [stay put] standard to emphasize the impact on the student,” an examination of such decisions reflects an emphasis on the dilution of services or the “impact of this change [in location] on [the student’s] education,” not the impact of the change on the student himself or the possible exacerbation of student’s symptoms resulting from such transfer) (discussing AW. v. Fairfax County School Board, 372 F.3d 674 (4th Cir. 2004) (“the Fourth Circuit reviewed several ‘stay put’ decisions and noted that important factors to be considered in deciding whether a change (in location, in that case) is a true ‘change in placement’ are whether the change impacts FAPE by ‘diluting’ the quality of services or increasing the restrictiveness of the student’s program)” and Hale ex rel. Hale v. Poplar Bluffs R-I Sch. Dist., 280 F.3d 831 (8th Cir. 2002) (“The 8th Circuit decided similarly … [finding] that providing identical services in a different setting constituted a change in placement under the facts of that particular case because of the impact of the change”)).
[30] See Sherri A.D., 975 F.2d at 206.
[31] 34 CFR 300.116 (a)(1).
[32] Emphasis added.
[33] See Letter to Breeskin, 75 IDELR 256 (OSEP 2019) (the proximity of possible placements to the child's residence is a factor that the placement team, including the parent, must discuss in identifying schools capable of implementing the child's IEP).
[34] Blank, 420 Mass. at 407.
[35] Iannacchino, 451 Mass. at 636.