COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Student and Beverly Public Schools
BSEA #2614774
and Beverly Public Schools and Student
BSEA #2616221
RULING ON MOTHER’S THREE MOTIONS
This matter comes before the Hearing Officer on Mother’s Request for Rulings Regarding the N1 and IEP Clarification (Motion 1)filed with the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) on June 26, 2026[1] requesting a ruling “regarding (1) the inclusion of the N1[2] in [Student’s] referral packet and (2) whether the current IEP adequately reflects [Student’s] need for 1:1 support outside of the traditional school day” (First Request and Second Request, respectively). Subsequently, on the same date, Mother submitted a Clarification of Requested Relief Regarding Proposed IEP Language explaining that the Second Request pertains to language on page 18 of a proposed Individualized Education Program (IEP), not the 1:1 provisions in that IEP’s proposed Service Delivery Grid, and advising that she is requesting “that the Hearing Officer order the District to amend the IEP to include language that accurately reflects the level of support within the body of the document”. On June 29, 2026, Mother indicated in an email (titled “request for ruling regarding referral materials and IEP clarification”) that she had signed and partially accepted the proposed IEP to allow for implementation of the agreed portions “without further delay” and that she remains “ready and willing to execute the referral consent to move forward with the referral process promptly upon the Hearing Officer’s ruling on these issues”.
On June 30, 2026, the District filed its Opposition to [Motion 1], seeking its’ denial. With respect to the First Request, the District argued that it is beyond the authority of the Hearing Officer to determine the contents of an out-of-district referral packet; that inclusion of the N1 provides relevant information to potential placements to “ensure an accurate depiction of the student as a potential candidate” so it can make a “fully informed” placement decision; and that failing to include the N1 could be “immediate grounds for termination” of the contract that the District is required to enter into with the subsequently identified out-of-district program. The District also asserts the Second Request is moot as the IEP provides for “16 total hours of 1:1 support daily, including after school hours in the residential setting for 9.25 hours daily and on non-school-day/weekends for 16 hours daily”.
On June 26, 2026, Mother filed Parent’s Request for Immediate Interim Services Pending Hearing Decision (Motion 2) seeking to have “the Hearing Officer issue an order requiring the immediate implementation of interim services for [Student] pending the issuance of a final decision in the above-captioned matter” and proposing a specific interim service plan. On June 29, 2026, by email, Mother advised that as “supplemental authority” in support of Motion 2, she relies on “In Re: Quincy Public Schools, BSEA #03-4007 (Ruling on Motion for Interim Services, 2003)” (Quincy). Mother argued that as with the Quincy matter, interim services are appropriate in this matter as the instant matter involves “highly unusual circumstances were (sic) waiting for a final decision would cause irreparable harm that later compensatory services could not remedy”. On June 30, 2026, Mother filed a Supplemental Statement in Support of Pending Request for Interim Relief (Supplemental Interim Relief Statement) contending that under the terms of a September 2, 2025 Settlement Agreement the District remained obligated to provide an “operative stay-put placement” regardless of any disputes that existed between the Parties with respect to the “contents of the IEP”. Mother also reiterated her proposed specific interim service plan.
Also on June 30, 2026, Mother filed Parent’s Supplemental Request Regarding Stay-Put Placement (Motion 3) raising the same arguments made in the Supplemental Interim Relief Statement with regard to the terms of the Parties’ September 2, 2025 Settlement Agreement on the District’s obligations to provide Student with an “operative stay-put placement” and requesting that,
the Hearing Officer consider and make findings regarding: 1) whether the District satisfied its obligation to propose and establish a stay-put placement … 2) whether ongoing disputes regarding the Student’s IEP or referral materials relieved the District of its responsibility to provide an operative stay-put placement; and 3) whether the absence of such a placement contributed to the denial of educational services and supports to the Student.
Believing that Motion 3 could be construed as an amended hearing request, on June 30, 2026, the District filed a letter opposing allowance of any amendment, given the pending accelerated hearing date of July 7, 2026 (which date would be recalculated if amendment were to be so allowed) and contending that the BSEA has no jurisdiction to interpret terms of a Settlement Agreement. Thereafter, on June 30, 2026, Mother filed a Response to District’s Opposition to Supplemental Request Regarding Stay-Put and Interim Services clarifying that in filing Motion 3 she is not seeking to amend her hearing request, or delay the proceedings, nor is she asserting an independent breach-of-contract claim. Rather, Mother only relies on the Settlement Agreement “as evidence relevant to the educational issues currently in dispute”. Mother also advised that Motion 3 “seeks clarification regarding the District’s obligations following [Student’s] termination from Waterford Country School and requests interim educational services while he remains without an educational placement”.
On July 2, 2026, the District filed its Opposition to Parent’s Request for Immediate Interim Services and Multiple Supplemental Motions (Opposition to Motions 2 and 3) contending that it is not obligated to provide interim services, generally, or the specific interim services requested by Mother, given Mother’s own actions in refusing to consent to placement referrals offered by the District. Moreover, as the dispute over interim and/or stay-put services is one of the underlying issues in the matter, the District argues it cannot be decided without an evidentiary hearing on the merits. Finally, the District contends that Quincy is here inapplicable and presented legal argument to support its position that it cannot provide Mother’s requested interim services
As neither Party requested a hearing on the Motions, and because neither testimony nor oral argument would advance the Hearing Officer's understanding of the issues involved, this Ruling is issued without a hearing, pursuant to Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals (Hearing Rules)Rule VI(D). For the reasons articulated below, the Motionsare DENIED.
I. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND[3]:
1. On June 3, 2026, Mother filed an Accelerated Hearing Request (BSEA #2614774) (Student HR)with regard to Student, indicating that accelerated status was warranted as “[Student] does not currently have a placement and has not been in school since April 2026. The district has not provided interim services or a proposed placement”. Accelerated status was granted and a Notice of Accelerated Hearing was issued, scheduling this matter for hearing on July 7, 2026.
2. According to the Student HR, Student is diagnosed with “Autism, Disruptive Mood Disorder, Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder, ADHD, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder Major Depressive Disorder, and Tic Disorder”. Student also has a “history of self harm and injury to others”. Student last attended “Waterford Country School, a non-766 placement, funded through DESE single-source approval pursuant to a settlement agreement” until his placement was terminated in or about April 2026. Since then, Student has remained at home and has received no educational services. The Parties dispute the reasons for this lack of educational services.
3. On June 23, 2026, the District proposed an IEP dated 6/22/2026 to 10/13/2026 (June 22, 2026 IEP) calling for placement in a Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)-approved residential educational program “TBD”, which proposed IEP was sent to Parents with the N1 that is the subject of Motion 1.
4. Also on June 23, 2026, the District filed an Accelerated Hearing Request (BSEA #2616221) (District HR) seeking accelerated status “because the Student is without a placement as a consequence of the Parent’s obstructionism”. The District requested that this matter be consolidated with BSEA #2614774 and that both matters be heard on the pending July 7, 2026, hearing date. On June 24, 2026, the matter was found not to meet the standard for accelerated status, and a Notice of Hearing was issued providing for a hearing on July 13, 2026.
5. According to the District HR, since April 2026, it has proposed to place Student in “any DESE approved residential program”. However, this referral process has yet to commence “because the Parent (mother) refuses to consent to a release of information, purportedly due to her dissatisfaction with the IEP and the contents of the referral packet”. The District contends that “Parent’s ongoing obstruction of the formal referral process constitutes a denial of the Student’s right to FAPE”.
6. By Ruling dated June 26, 2026, the Student HR and the District HR matters were consolidated, and the District’s request to advance the Hearing was allowed, such that both matters are now scheduled to be heard on July 7, 2026.
7. On June 29, 2026, Mother partially rejected the June 22, 2026 IEP but consented to the proposed placement. However, to date, Mother has not consented to any referral packets being sent to any out-of-district residential programs.
II. DISCUSSION
1. MOTION 1
A. First Request
Mother seeks to have the N1 associated with the June 22, 2026 IEP excluded from Student’s referral packet. According to Mother, the N1 “is an administrative notice to the parent reflecting disputed portions of the parties”, which is “distinct from the IEP, educational evaluations, and other documents describing [Student’s] educational needs and programming”. Mother further contends that the BSEA “may have authority to determine whether an N1 is properly considered part of [Student’s] educational record or educational materials for referral purposes”.
The District argues that the N1 consists of the requisite “prior written notice” required under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (citing 34 CFR 303.421[4]) and it includes both a summary of the District’s proposals and rejected options. Additionally, the District disputes that the BSEA has jurisdiction over the contents of the referral packet, given that the District is legally obligated to enter into a contract “for the provision of services that must be based on the covenant of good faith and fair dealing” with any out-of-district placement at which Student will ultimately be placed, and the BSEA is not a party to this contract. According to the District, inclusion of the N1 in the referral packet will ensure that any out-of-district program receiving a referral has all information necessary to make “fully informed decisions regarding [Student’s] appropriateness for the program prior to acceptance”.
While I agree with Parent that the N1 is a “distinct” document, separate from the IEP and or other special education related documents (i.e., an evaluation), I disagree that the N1 is intended to only address areas of dispute between school districts and parents. Rather, an N1 provides, by its very title, a “narrative description of school district proposal” addressing the actions the school district is proposing to take; the reasons why the school district is so proposing to act; the rejected options that were considered and why each option was rejected; what evaluation procedure, test, record or report was used as a basis for the proposed action; any other factors that were relevant to the proposed action; and what next steps, if any, are being recommended. As such, it is both a student record[5] and a required supplemental document to an IEP[6].
Although nothing prohibits parents and school districts from mutually agreeing to the contents of referral packets to potential out-of-district placements, provided the packets contain student records sufficient to give prospective programs an accurate understanding of the student’s educational profile, needs and required supports[7], nothing in the IDEA authorizes a due process hearing officer to prescribe the contents of a referral packet, or otherwise intervene in a referral process that has not yet begun[8]. The District is correct that it must enter into a contract for the provision of services with any out-of-district program that Student would attend[9], and, as such, it is essential that this program is fully aware of the profile and needs of the student that it is accepting for placement. As I already indicated, the N1 is one of Student’s current student records; thus, its inclusion in a referral packet is appropriate. However, as the N1 is only the District’s summary of its proposal and the Team meeting discussions leading to that proposal, to the extent that Mother is concerned with its contents, she is not precluded from preparing her own written summary of that Team meeting, and asking to have that also included in the referral packets, if this will facilitate the progress of what appears to be a clearly protracted referral process[10].
B. Second Request
Mother’s June 29, 2026 partial rejection of the June 22, 2026 IEP renders the majority of the arguments with regard to the Second Request moot. To the extent that her areas of rejection remain in dispute, their appropriateness can only be determined after a hearing on the merits, which is currently scheduled to commence on July 7, 2026.
2. MOTIONS 2 and 3
Mother seeks to have an “immediate” order for interim services and/or stay-put services issue prior to issuance of the decision in this accelerated matter. She acknowledges that such an order involves one of the underlying issues herein but has submitted documentary evidence and legal argument to support her requests for an order prior to the hearing. The District contends that it is not obligated to provide the services Mother is requesting due to Mother’s own inactions and refusals[11], also presenting documentary evidence and legal arguments to support its position. Additionally, the District contends that resolution of this dispute cannot occur until after an evidentiary hearing on the merits.
I agree that the issues of interim and/or stay-put services can only be determined after a hearing on the merits, which is currently scheduled to commence on July 7, 2026. The arguments presented to support and oppose Motion 2 and Motion 3 are the same arguments each party makes in their respective hearing requests. To the extent Parent is concerned that a delay in receiving the services requested in these Motions will result in educational harm to Student, she has already obtained the appropriate available relief from the BSEA as these issues are being heard on an accelerated basis. Mother cannot circumvent the hearing process by obtaining a ruling on the same issues in advance of the hearing.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Motions are DENIED. I note, however, that since commencement of this matter, the Parties have made progress in addressing and even resolving several areas of dispute. Thus, at this stage, the following remaining issues will be addressed at the accelerated hearing scheduled for July 7, 2026[12]:
1. Whether the rejected portions of the June 22, 2026 IEP are reasonably calculated to provide Student with a free, appropriate and public education (FAPE)?;
2. Whether Mother’s refusal to consent to the formal referral process constitutes a denial of Student’s right to a FAPE?[13]; and
3. What, if any, interim and/or stay-put services is Student entitled to receive?
To the extent that the Parties believe there are additional issues included in their respective hearing requests which are not set forth above, they will be given an opportunity to note those issues with specificity on the record during the July 7, 2026 hearing, and to seek to have them addressed separately on a non-accelerated track[14].
The Parties are reminded that should they reach a settlement agreement prior to the Hearing the moving party shall submit a written withdrawal of the hearing request. Failure to appear at the Hearing may result in dismissal of the matter with or without prejudice. The Parties are encouraged to review the Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals, the BSEA Reference Manual, and the BSEA Pro Se Guide which can be found at https://www.mass.gov/lists/bsea-forms-and-publications. Technical assistance is also available by contacting the BSEA by phone at 781-397-4750.
So Ordered by the Hearing Officer,
/s/ Marguerite M. Mitchell
Marguerite M. Mitchell
Dated: July 6, 2026
Footnotes
[1] Although dated June 25, 2026, Motion 1 was received after business hours and is deemed filed the next business day.
[2] A copy of this document was attached to Motion 1 which indicates it to be a Notice of Proposed School District Action dated June 23, 2026. (hereinafter “N1”).
[3] The factual statements set forth are taken as true for purposes of this Ruling only.
[4] I note that this regulation pertains to Part C of the IDEA not Part B.
[5] See 603 CMR 23.02 (defining “student record” to consist of all information “… regardless of physical form or characteristics concerning a student that is organized on the basis of the student's name or in a way that such student may be individually identified, and that is kept by the public schools of the Commonwealth”).
[6] See 34 CFR 300.503(a) and (b) (requiring that before a school district proposes an “educational placement of the child or the provision of FAPE to the child” it must provide written notice that includes “(1) A description of the action proposed or refused by the agency; (2) An explanation of why the agency proposes or refuses to take the action; (3) A description of each evaluation procedure, assessment, record, or report the agency used as a basis for the proposed or refused action; (4) A statement that the parents of a child with a disability have protection under the procedural safeguards of this part and, if this notice is not an initial referral for evaluation, the means by which a copy of a description of the procedural safeguards can be obtained; (5) Sources for parents to contact to obtain assistance in understanding the provisions of this part; (6) A description of other options that the IEP Team considered and the reasons why those options were rejected; and (7) A description of other factors that are relevant to the agency's proposal or refusal”).
[7] See 603 CMR 28.06(2(f)(2) (requiring that districts, when implementing out-of-district placements identified by the Team, shall “…consult[] with personnel of the school contemplated to provide the program for the student to determine that the school is able to provide the services on the student's IEP. The Team shall not recommend a specific program unless it is assured that the adequacy of said program has been evaluated and the program can provide the services required by the student's IEP”).
[8] See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6) (granting the BSEA jurisdiction over timely complaints filed by a parent/guardian or a school district "with respect to any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child."; 34 CFR 507(a)(1); 603 CMR 28.08(3)(a) (in Massachusetts, a parent or a school district, "may request … a hearing at any time … concerning the eligibility, evaluation, placement, IEP, provision of special education …, or procedural protections of state and federal law for students with disabilities”).
[9] See 603 CMR 28.06(3)(f).
[10] See In Re: Hamilton-Wenham Reg.l Sch. Dist., BSEA Nos. 1707353 and 1804291, 24 MSER 1 (Figueroa, 2018) (reasoning that with respect to a dispute over the consent form for referral packets, Parents could have noted their objection to the disputed additional language on the form and then signed consent, but by refusing to do so “once again the entire process was unnecessarily delayed”).
[11] This is the same claim being made by the District in the District HR.
[12] This statement of issues is subject to further modification should any or all of these issues be resolved prior to the commencement of the accelerated hearing, particularly given Mother’s June 29, 2026 email indicating she remains “ready and willing to execute the referral consent to move forward with the referral process promptly upon the Hearing Officer’s ruling on these issues”. This Ruling should not be construed to address the appropriateness of Mother’s decision to so wait.
[13] This issue is derived from the District HR, only, which was not granted accelerated status, but was consolidated with Student’s HR as it will involve duplicative testimony and documents. Thus, to the extent that the other two issues are resolved, and this issue remains, it will proceed on a non-accelerated basis.
[14] See Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals Rule II(D)(3)(a) (indicating that only accelerated issues will be heard on an accelerated track. “The remaining issues, if any, will proceed separately on a non-accelerated track”).