Final Decision and Order 25-0496 25-0521 (Consolidated)

Student^[1] v. New Hartford Board of Education

Appearing on behalf of Student:
Student’s Parents, Pro Se

Appearing on behalf of the Board of Education:      
Attorney Peter Maher
Attorney Julie Reznick
Attorney Chris Sanetti

Shipman & Goodwin LLP
One Constitution Plaza
Hartford, CT 06013-1919

Appearing before:
Janis C. Jerman
Hearing Officer

FINAL DECISION AND ORDER

Procedural Posture

Students Mother filed a Request for Due Process Hearing pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (IDEA) via Request for Impartial Special Education Hearing dated March 24, 2025.² Board of Education (BOE) received the Request for Hearing on March 24. On March 26, the undersigned Hearing Officer was appointed to preside over the case, which was assigned Case number 25-0496.

The 30-day resolution period ended April 23 and the original deadline to mail the final decision and order in case 25-0496 was June 7. BOE filed a 10-day Response to the Request for Hearing on April 3. On April 4, BOEs Attorney filed a Request for Due Process Hearing pursuant to the IDEA to defend the appropriateness of BOEs evaluations of Student due to Students Parents requests for Independent Educational Evaluations (IEEs) at public expense. On the same date, BOEs Attorney filed a Motion to Consolidate the two cases.

Students Parents received the Request for Hearing on April 4. On April 8, the undersigned Hearing Officer was appointed to preside over the case, which was assigned Case number 25-0521. The original deadline to mail the final decision and order in Case 25-0521 was May 19.

On April 8, BOEs Attorney filed a timely Sufficiency Challenge arguing that the Request for Hearing lacked sufficient information about the nature of the claims being made to allow BOE to prepare its case and did not contain a proper proposed resolution. The Request for Hearing was deemed insufficient as to the requirement that it include a description of the nature of the problem of the child relating to the proposed or refused initiation or change, including facts relating to the problem, under 20 U.S.C. 1415(b)(7)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.508(b)(5); Conn.Regs. § 10-76h-3(d)(4). Students Parents were given leave to amend the Request for Hearing on or before April 23.

Absent a sufficient Request for Hearing in Case 25-0496, the Motion to Consolidate was deemed not ripe for adjudication and held in abeyance. On April 8, BOEs Attorney also filed a Motion to Dismiss in Case 25-0496 arguing that the Hearing Officer lacks jurisdiction over many of the claims and proposed remedies and/or for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Absent a sufficient Request for Hearing in Case 25-0496, the Motion to Dismiss was denied for being not ripe for adjudication.

At the April 9 telephonic prehearing conference, Students Mother appeared on behalf of Student and Attorney Maher and Attorney Reznick appeared on behalf of BOE. The following issues were identified in Case 25-0521:

1. Was the Board of Educations spring 2025 triennial evaluation of Student appropriate?
2. If the answer to Issue One above is negative, are Students Parents entitled to Independent Education Evaluations at public expense in the following areas:
   1. Neuropsychological Evaluation;
   2. Speech and Language Evaluation;
   3. Language and Literacy Evaluation;
   4. Occupational Therapy Evaluation;
   5. Physical Therapy Evaluation;
   6. Ophthalmology Evaluation for Convergence;
   7. Functional Vision Evaluation from SIGHT;
   8. Auditory Processing Evaluation with Environmental Observation and Evaluation from CREC SoundBridge; and/or
   9. Assistive Technology?

On April 22, Students Mother timely filed an Amended Request for Due Process Hearing in Case 25-0496. The hearing timeline reset accordingly. The 30-day resolution period ended May 22 and the deadline to mail the final decision and order was July 6. The Motion to Consolidate the two cases was granted on April 30. The deadline to mail the final decision and order for the consolidated cases was July 6.

At the May 1 telephonic prehearing conference for the consolidated cases, Students Mother appeared on behalf of Student and Attorney Maher, Attorney Reznick, and Attorney Sanetti appeared on behalf of BOE. The following issues were discussed:

1. Did the Board of Education fail to offer Student a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment for the 2025 extended school year and/or the 2025-26 school year by:
   1. failing to include all required members of the Planning and Placement Team in meetings;
   2. failing to accurately document and consider Students Present Level of Performance in developing his Individualized Education Program;
   3. failing to develop an Individualized Education Program that is reasonably calculated to allow Student to make meaningful progress;
   4. failing to develop appropriate and measurable goals and objectives;
   5. failing to consider and offer Student appropriate related services; and/or
   6. changing Students primary disability classification?
2. Did the Board of Education violate Students and/or Students Parents procedural rights by:
   1. failing to obtain informed consent for all assessments conducted as part of Students triennial evaluation?
   2. providing Students Parents with untimely and/or inaccurate notices of Planning and Placement team meetings and/or Prior Written Notices;
   3. conducting Planning and Placement Team meetings without the presence of Student and/or Students Parents;
   4. predetermining Students educational program; and/or
   5. failing to consider private evaluations provided by Students Parents?
3. If the answer to Issue Two is affirmative, did the procedural violations impede Students right to a free appropriate public education; significantly impede Students Parents opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding provision of a free appropriate public education to Student; or cause a deprivation of educational benefit?
4. If the answer to Issues One, Two, and/or Three above are affirmative, what shall be the remedy?
5. Was the Board of Educations spring 2025 triennial evaluation of Student appropriate?
6. If the answer to Issue Six above is negative, are Students Parents entitled to an Independent Education Evaluation at public expense in the following areas:
   1. Neuropsychological Evaluation;
   2. Speech and Language Evaluation;
   3. Language and Literacy Evaluation;
   4. Occupational Therapy Evaluation;
   5. Physical Therapy Evaluation;
   6. Ophthalmology Evaluation for Convergence;
   7. Functional Vision Evaluation from SIGHT;
   8. Auditory Processing Evaluation with Environmental Observation and Evaluation from CREC SoundBridge; and/or
   9. Assistive Technology?

Students Parents Amended Request for Hearing alleges violations over which a Hearing Officer appointed under 34 C.F.R. § 300.500 et seq. and Conn.Regs. § 10-76h-1 et seq. does not have jurisdiction. Issues related to Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), hostile environment, discrimination, and teacher/administrator discipline do not fall within this Hearing Officers jurisdiction and were declined.

BOEs Attorney indicated that another Hearing Officer issued a final decision in Case 24-0429 between these parties; BOE prevailed in that case; there is overlap between the issues and findings of facts in that case and certain allegations in Students Parents Amended Request for Hearing in this case; and BOE has questions regarding the sufficiency of the Amended Request for Hearing. The parties were granted time to request written clarification of the issues.

On May 7, BOEs Attorney filed a Sufficiency Challenge arguing that Students Parents Amended Request for Hearing lacks sufficient information about the nature of the claims being made to allow the Board to prepare its case. Student’s Mother filed responses to the Sufficiency Challenge on May 7 and May 10. The Request for Hearing was deemed sufficient as to the requirement that it include a description of the nature of the problem of the child relating to the proposed or refused initiation or change, including facts relating to the problem, under 20 U.S.C. 1415(b)(7)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.508(b)(5); Conn.Regs. § 10-76h-3(d)(4).

On May 7, BOEs Attorney and Students Mother timely filed requests for clarification of the issues. The issues were clarified and confirmed to be:

1. Did the Board of Education fail to offer Student a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment for the 2025 extended school year and/or the 2025-26 school year at the March 7, 2025 Planning and Placement Team meeting by:
   1. failing to include all required members of the Planning and Placement Team in the meeting;
   2. failing to accurately document and consider Students Present Level of Performance in developing his Individualized Education Program;
   3. failing to develop an Individualized Education Program that is reasonably calculated to allow Student to make meaningful progress;
   4. failing to develop appropriate and measurable goals and objectives;
   5. failing to consider and offer Student appropriate related services; and/or
   6. changing Students primary disability classification?
2. Did the Board of Education violate Students and/or Students Parents procedural rights by:
   1. failing to obtain informed consent for all assessments conducted as part of Students 2025 triennial evaluation?
   2. providing Students Parents with untimely and/or inaccurate notices of the March 7, 2025 Planning and Placement team meeting and/or Prior Written Notices;
   3. conducting the March 7, 2025 Planning and Placement Team meeting without the presence of Student and/or Students Parents; and/or
   4. predetermining Students educational program for the 2025 extended school year and/or the 2025-26 school year?
3. If the answer to Issue Two is affirmative, did the procedural violations impede Students right to a free appropriate public education; significantly impede Students Parents opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding provision of a free appropriate public education to Student; or cause a deprivation of educational benefit?
4. If the answer to Issues One, Two, and/or Three above are affirmative, what shall be the remedy?
5. Was the Board of Educations spring 2025 triennial evaluation of Student appropriate?
6. If the answer to Issue Five above is negative, are Students Parents entitled to an Independent Education Evaluation at public expense in the following areas:
   1. Neuropsychological Evaluation;
   2. Speech and Language Evaluation;
   3. Language and Literacy Evaluation;
   4. Occupational Therapy Evaluation;
   5. Physical Therapy Evaluation;
   6. Ophthalmology Evaluation for Convergence;
   7. Functional Vision Evaluation from SIGHT;
   8. Auditory Processing Evaluation with Environmental Observation and Evaluation from CREC SoundBridge; and/or
   9. Assistive Technology?

On May 7, Students Mother requested clarification as to what constitutes Students Stay-Put placement during the pendency of these consolidated cases. At the Hearing Officers request, BOEs Attorney provided Students 2024 and 2025 Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) and Prior Written Notices (PWN). Students March 18, 2024 IEP was determined to be his Stay-Put placement and BOE was ordered to maintain Student in his Stay-Put placement during the pendency of this case unless they and Students Parent otherwise agree.

The parties participated in mediation on May 8. They did not come to a resolution.

On June 23, Students Parents filed a Request to Compel Production identifying eleven sets of documents sought from BOE. BOEs Attorney filed a response to the Request to Compel and Students Parents filed an offer of proof as to the relevance and need for the documents to present their case. After fully considering the parties positions, the Request to Compel was denied.

Hearings were held on June 11 and 30. At the June 30 hearing, BOEs Attorney made a verbal request on the record for an extension of the deadline to mail the final decision and order to accommodate additional hearing dates in July. After fully considering the parties positions, the request was granted and the deadline to mail the final decision and order extended to September 1. Additional hearings were held on July 2 and 28.

The parties were asked to submit a joint stipulation of uncontested facts two days prior to the first hearing to save time at the hearing. The parties could not come to agreement as to any joint stipulation of facts.

Each party made opening statements at the June 11 hearing. The following witnesses were questioned and cross-examined under oath: General Education Classroom Teacher (Classroom Teacher), School Psychologist, Special Education Teacher (SpecEd Teacher), Speech Language Pathologist (SLP), Physical Therapist, Occupational Therapist, Gym and Wellness Teacher (Gym Teacher), School Principal (Principal), Social Worker, and Director of Student Services (Director).

The parties timely submitted post-hearing briefs on August 13. On August 19, BOEs Attorney filed a Motion to Strike those portions of Students Parents brief that contain information not admitted into the record during the four hearing days. Students Parents brief, as submitted, is part of the administrative, not evidentiary, record. The Motion to Strike was denied.

To the extent that procedural history, statement of jurisdiction, findings of fact, or discussion represent conclusions of law, they should be so considered, and vice versa.

Statement of Jurisdiction

This matter was heard as a contested case pursuant to C.G.S. § 10-76h and related regulations, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f) and related regulations, and in accordance with the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA), C.G.S. §§ 4-176e to 4-178, inclusive, 4-181a and 4-186.

Student Background

1. Student is very bright and has strong math skills. He is a hard worker who wants to succeed and has a lot of interests and a great sense of humor. He is energetic, creative, and inquisitive. He is quiet upon first meeting and opens up as he gets to know people. He is consistently identified as a great kid who loves being with his friends. (Testimony of Occupational Therapist, Principal, Social Worker, Director, SpecEd Teacher, SLP)
2. During the 2024-25 school year, Student was in fifth grade at BOEs elementary school. (Exh. B-12, S-23; Testimony of SpecEd Teacher)
3. Student has diagnoses of autism and ADHD. He is eligible for special education and related services as defined in the IDEA. (Exh. B-1, B-11; Testimony of Classroom Teacher)
4. Student meets academic expectations for fifth grade. (Exh. B-18, B-28, S-29; Testimony of Classroom Teacher)

Qualifications of Witnesses

5. Director holds a Bachelor of Arts in psychology, a Master of Science in school counseling, and a Certificate of Advanced Graduate Study in advanced educational leadership. He holds Connecticut certifications in Intermediate Administration or Supervision (092) and School Counselor (068). He has served as BOEs director of student services for 2.5 years. In that capacity, he is responsible for attending and running Planning and Placement Team (PPT) meetings, supervising special education teachers and related services staff, and evaluating paraprofessionals and school nurses. He previously worked as a school counselor in another district where he counseled students, participated in PPT meetings, and served as a student advocate. Director is familiar with Student as he has attended PPT meetings for him and seen him in classes where Director was observing teachers. (Exh. B-19; Testimony of Director)
6. Principal holds a Bachelor of Arts in social sciences, a Master of Arts in elementary education, a Sixth Year Certification in educational leadership, and a Doctorate in educational leadership. He holds a Connecticut certification in Intermediate Administration or Supervision (092). She has served as a principal for BOE for eight years. She previously worked as a classroom teacher, interim assistant principal, numeracy coach, and math specialist for other school districts over sixteen years. (Exh. B-20)
7. Classroom Teacher has an undergraduate degree in elementary education and a Masters degree in special education. She has ten years experience as a sixth-grade teacher and three years experience as a fifth-grade teacher for BOE. She is responsible for teaching curriculum, managing classroom behavior, and implementing IEPs. She is familiar with Student as he is in her classroom. (Exh. B-21; Testimony of Classroom Teacher)
8. SpecEd Teacher holds a Bachelor of Arts in elementary education and history, a Master of Science in special education, and a Sixth Year Certificate in reading and language arts. She holds Connecticut Professional Educator Certifications for Kindergarten to Grade 6 (013), Remedial Reading and Remedial Language Arts (102), and Comprehensive Special Education K-12 (165). She is a Certified Orton-Gillingham Practitioner and Fellow In Training, which allows her to train other teachers. She has worked for BOE as a special education teacher since 2007. She conducts three to twelve evaluations per year and has administered the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT) 22 times. She has experience working with students with autism. She has worked with Student since third grade. (Exh. B-22; Testimony of SpecEd Teacher)
9. Occupational Therapist holds Associates degrees in general studies and certified occupational therapy and a Master of Science in occupational therapy. She is a Certified Occupational Therapist and is licensed as an occupational therapist by the State Department of Public Health. She has twenty years experience as an occupational therapist in school settings and has worked for BOE since 2011. She is responsible for evaluating students, providing direct services and consultative services, and attends PPT and Section 504 meetings. She has provided direct and consultative services for Student since he was in kindergarten and has evaluated him. (Exh. B-23; Testimony of Occupational Therapist)
10. SLP holds a Bachelor of Science and a Master of Science in communication disorders. She is licensed by the State Department of Public Health and holds a Certification of Clinical Competence from the American Speech-Language Hearing Association and a Provisional Educator Certificate (061) as a speech language pathologist from the State Department of Education. She has worked for BOE as a speech language pathologist since 2019. She has three years previous experience in clinical and school settings. She has experience working with children with autism and communication disorders. She develops treatment plans, drafts goals and objectives, consults with teachers and families, serves as a case manager, and participates as part of a PPT when necessary. She has worked with Student since January 2020, conducted evaluations of Student in 2022 and 2025, and has been his case manager. (Exh. B-25; Testimony of SLP)
11. School Psychologist holds a Bachelor of Science in psychology, Master of Science in school psychology, and Sixth Year Certificate in school psychology. He is certified as a school psychologist by the State of Connecticut. He has worked as a school psychologist for BOE for three years and has six previous years experience as a school psychologist in other districts. School Psychologist participates as a member of PPTs, helps students with direct instruction in social skills and executive functioning skills and is a member of the Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) team. School Psychologist has conducted over 100 student evaluations in his career. He did not provide any services to Student prior to 2025. (Exh. B-26, B-26A; Testimony of School Psychologist)
12. Social Worker holds a Bachelor of Science in psychology and a Masters degree in social work. She is certified by the Connecticut Department of Education as a school social worker (071) and is a Licensed Clinical Social Worker by the State Department of Public Health. She has worked for BOE as a social worker since 2020. She has previous experience as a psychiatric clinician, outpatient therapist, and youth mental health program clinician. She provides direct counseling to students, attends PPT and Section 504 meetings, supports staff, and provides resources to families. She has provided direct services to Student for four years. (Exh. B-24; Testimony of Social Worker)
13. Gym Teacher holds a Bachelor of Science in physical education and a Master of Arts in physical education K-12. She is BOEs physical education and wellness teacher and teacher in charge. She has worked for BOE for 22 years. (Exh. B-29; Testimony of Gym Teacher)
14. Physical Therapist holds a Bachelor of Science in health sciences and a Doctorate of physical therapy. She is licensed as a physical therapist by the State of Connecticut. She has ten years experience as a physical therapist, in clinical and school settings. She is contracted as a per diem physical therapist with BOE where she evaluates and treats students, attends PPT meetings, and provides consultations. She provided indirect consultation services through Students IEPs in the 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2024-25 school years. (Exh. B-27; Testimony of Physical Therapist, Classroom Teacher)

Triennial Evaluation Planning

15. The PPT met on March 18, 2024 to conduct an annual review and plan for Students triennial evaluation in spring 2025. Students Parents concerns were noted in the IEP and taken into consideration. The PPT recommended that Students triennial reevaluation be completed by March 17, 2025, Students next annual review date. (Exh. B-1, S-71, S-72; Testimony of Director, Principal)
16. The following day, BOE sent Students Parents a Consent to Conduct Reevaluation Assessment seeking consent for Students triennial evaluation. The consent form listed the following assessments that BOE proposed to conduct: Observation (classroom & social settings by School Psychologist); Intellectual/Cognitive Functioning (individually administered standardized assessment by School Psychologist); Behavioral/Social/Emotional (rating scales by School Psychologist); Academic (individually administered standardized assessment by SpecEd Teacher); Communication Speech/Language (individually administered standardized assessment by SLP); Other (sensory processing/classroom observation by Occupational Therapist); Other (autism rating scales & ADOS-2, NEPSY-2 social perception subtests by School Psychologist); Adaptive Behavior (rating scale by School Psychologist); Motor Development Gross (individually administered standardized assessment and observation based assessment by Physical Therapist); and Motor Development Fine (fine/visual motor by Occupational Therapist). (Exh. B-2; Testimony of SpecEd Teacher, SLP, Occupational Therapist, Director)
17. BOE filled out the consent form consistent with their practice of starting broad to get an overall functioning and then be able to administer additional assessments if they need to look at something in more depth. This practice is consistent with state training and allows BOE to get full and accurate information without over testing Student. (Exh. B-2; Testimony of SpecEd Teacher, SLP, Occupational Therapist, Director)
18. Students Parents did not sign the consent form because it did not list the specific individual assessments proposed to be conducted. (Exh. B-2; Testimony of SpecEd Teacher, SLP, Occupational Therapist, Director)
19. BOE revised the consent form to include very specific assessments to be administered, which is not a typical practice. The revised consent form listed the following assessments:
    • Communication Speech/Language: Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-5 (CELF-5); Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language 2nd Edition (CASL-2); RESCA-E Social Communication Inventory; Social Language Development Test Elementary: Normative Update (SLDT-E: NU) by SLP
    • Sensory Processing: classroom observation by Occupational Therapist
    • Academic: WIAT 4th Edition (WIAT-4) by SpecEd Teacher
    • Observation (classroom & social settings by School Psychologist)
    • Motor Development (Fine): Developmental Test of Visual Perception 3rd Edition (DTVP-3), Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency 2nd Edition (BOT-2) Fine Motor Form by Occupational Therapist
    • Adaptive Behavior: Vineland III Adaptive Behavior Scales 3d Edition (Vineland-3) by School Psychologist
    • Other: NEPSY-2 social perception domain and attention/executive functioning domains by School Psychologist
    • Other: Sensory Processing Measure 2nd Edition (SPM-2) School Form by Occupational Therapist
    • Behavioral/Social/Emotional: Social Responsiveness Scale 2nd Edition (SRS-2), Social Skills Improvement System-SEL Edition (SSIS-SEL), the Conners Rating Scale 4th Edition, Autism Diagnosis Observation Schedule 2nd Edition (ADOS-2), Autism Spectrum Rating Scales (ASRS), Behavior Assessment System for Childdren 3rd edition (BASC-3), Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function 2nd Edition (BRIEF-2) by School Psychologist
    • Motor Development (Gross): Gross Motor Performance Measure, School Functional Assessment (SFA) by Physical Therapist
    • Intellectual/Cognitive Functioning: Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children 5th Edition (WISC-V) by School Psychologist
    (Exh. B-3; Testimony of SpecEd Teacher, SLP, Occupational Therapist, Director)
20. BOE provided Students Parents information about each of the assessments on the revised consent form so that they had informed consent to conduct the evaluation. Students Parents did not ask for any additional assessments and signed the revised consent form. Students Parents did not revoke consent. (Exh. B-3; Testimony of SpecEd Teacher, SLP, Occupational Therapist, Director)
21. On December 9, 2024, BOE sent Students Parents a notice of a PPT meeting to be held on March 7 to conduct an annual review and review Students triennial evaluation results to determine continued eligibility. (Exh. B-6, S-31, S-35; Testimony of Director)
22. Physical Therapist was left off the original meeting notice. On December 12, 2024, BOE sent a revised notice which included Physical Therapist as an attendee. (Exh. B-6, S-31, S-34; Testimony of Director)

Educational Evaluation

23. SpecEd Teacher conducted an educational evaluation of Student on six dates between January 8 and 22. She administered the WIAT-4 which is an individually administered clinical instrument designed to measure academic achievement for children of Students age and grade. The WIAT subtests measure listening, speaking, reading, writing, and math skills. SpecEd Teacher administered the assessment according to the guidelines. SpecEd Teacher has experience administering the WIAT. She administers it three to twelve times per school year. (Exh. B-7, S-26; Testimony of SpecEd Teacher)
24. Student was motivated to do well on the WIAT-4. He was not overly excited about doing writing tasks and was given the opportunity to start with the math assessments. Math is historically Students preferred area and an area of personal strength. He had difficulty sitting still and switched from sitting to standing during tasks. Students behaviors may have impacted his scores on timed tests. SpecEd Teacher has no concerns about Students academic abilities. (Exh. B-7, S-26; Testimony of SpecEd Teacher)
25. Students standard score placed him in the Extremely High range for word reading and spelling; Very High for math problem solving and numerical operations; High Average for reading comprehension; and Average for essay composition. Student is a strong reader. He said he does not like to write and only took five of the allotted ten minutes for the essay. Stopping early could impact his score, which was Average, his lowest standard score. SpecEd Teacher does not have concerns about Students ability to write or his oral language abilities. Students total achievement score was in the Extremely High range. The areas that are Students personal weaknesses are in the High Average range when compared to the normed range. (Exh. B-7, S-26; Testimony of SpecEd Teacher)
26. SpecEd Teacher includes observed behaviors in her report. She does not include medication changes or developmental history in her report as those are in other reports and/or his file. She did not consider his previous history but tested to see how he does currently in the triennial evaluation. The purpose of the triennial evaluation is to get updated information about Student. She has no concerns about Students ability to make progress in the general education curriculum. (Testimony of SpecEd Teacher)
27. SpecEd Teacher did not feel that any other assessments were necessary to conduct a comprehensive educational evaluation, which is part of a larger comprehensive triennial evaluation. (Testimony of SpecEd Teacher)

Occupational Therapy Evaluation

28. Occupational Therapist conducted an occupational therapy evaluation targeting Students fine motor, visual perceptual, and sensory processing skills. She evaluated him on three dates between January 9 and February 6. The fourth evaluation date was for a teacher to complete the SPM-2. The evaluation consisted of review of records (academic and medical history, current IEP and accommodations, and grades), staff consultation, Functional Assessment of Supporting Skills, Handwriting/Keyboarding Profile, BOT-2, DTVP-3, and SPM-2. Each of the assessments are valid, reliable, and technically sound. (Exh. B-8, S-28; Testimony of Occupational Therapist)
29. All testing directions were given to Student per testing protocols. During the evaluation, Student demonstrated decreased attention, impulsiveness, and hyperactivity and was redirected with increased verbal prompting. Student rushed through some tasks and was prompted to slow his pace. He shifted his sitting position more frequently. Some of these observed behaviors were not typical of observed past behaviors and Occupational Therapist noted that results should interpreted with caution. Student was able to complete all testing items. (Exh. B-8, S-28; Testimony of Occupational Therapist)
30. Occupational Therapist spoke with Classroom Teacher and SpecEd Teacher to see how Student was functioning and whether there were any issues. There were no concerns other than one handwriting piece. (Testimony of Occupational Therapist)
31. Classroom observations give insight into how a student is performing in the classroom as compared to the test environment. Occupational Therapist observed Student in language arts class which gave her an opportunity to observe his handwriting, a fine motor skill. Student was focused and engaged in the lesson. He was able to follow directions and complete his work independently and on time. Student shifted his sitting position at times during the observation, and his peers were observed doing the same. Occupational Therapist did not observe any fine motor, visual perception or sensory processing issues that interfered with his ability to participate in classroom activities. (Testimony of Occupational Therapist)
32. The BOT-2 measures a wide array of motor skills, including fine motor precision, fine motor integration, manual dexterity and upper limb coordination in children aged 4 to 21. Occupational Therapist administers the BOE-2 approximately 40 to 50 times per year. Student scored Average for all skills. Occupational Therapist has no concerns about Students ability to perform any of the skills tested on the BOT-2. No one else raised any concerns about his abilities to perform these skills. (Testimony of Occupational Therapist)
33. Occupational Therapist compared Students 2025 BOT-2 scores with his scores on the 2024 BOT-2 administered by a private provider. (Testimony of Occupational Therapist)
34. The updated BOT-3 was released in July 2024. The BOT-2 can be used for one year after the BOT-3 release. BOE received the BOT-3 in March 2025, after Students evaluation in January 2025. (Testimony of Occupational Therapist)
35. Occupational Therapist uses the Handwriting/Keyboarding Profile to identify any difficulties that a student might have and to inform about assistive technology that may be beneficial to support the student. She frequently administers it to fourth, fifth, and sixth grade students to gain baseline information for an evaluation and gives a lot of insight into the mechanics of handwriting. It is not a standardized assessment or evaluation. (Testimony of Occupational Therapist)
36. On the Handwriting profile, Student forms his letters correctly and appropriately spaced between words with minimal errors. He paused and looked up, which decreased his speed. Even with that, he still scored in the average range for words per minute. His handwriting speed is functional for his grade level. After this evaluation, Occupational Therapist had no concerns about Students handwriting skills in relation to his ability to access his education. (Exh. B-8, S-28; Testimony of Occupational Therapist)
37. On the Keyboarding Profile, Student typed with both hands with correct finger placement. He typed above the average words per minute for his grade level. His keyboarding speed is functional for his grade level. Occupational Therapist has no concerns about Students keyboarding skills. (Exh. B-8, S-28; Testimony of Occupational Therapist)
38. The Handwriting/Keyboarding Profile was not included on the consent form signed by Students Parents. Occupational Therapist does not typically obtain specific consent to administer a handwriting and keyboarding profile because it falls under the fine motor and visual perceptive testing that she does. (Exh. B-3; Testimony of Occupational Therapist)
39. The DTVP-3 assesses visual perceptual and visual motor skills. It is a standardized, norm-referenced instrument used to assess a person's ability to use visual information to produce a motor output and the ability to mentally analyze visual information. Occupational Therapist administers the DTVP 40 to 50 times per year. (Exh. B-8, S-28)
40. On the subtests, Student scored Very Superior on visual closure; Above Average on copying, figure-ground, and form constancy; and Average on eye-hand coordination. His composite scores were Superior on motor-reduced visual perception and general visual perception, and Average on visual motor integration. (Exh. B-8, S-28)
41. By lifting his pencil, Student did not follow the testing protocol on the eye-hand coordination task. He received zero points for the segments where he lifted his pencil. Despite this, he still performed in the Average range. Occupational Therapist has no concerns about Students ability to access the school environment or curriculum based on his scores and her observations. No one raised any concerns about Students hand-eye coordination, which is age appropriate. (Testimony of Occupational Therapist)
42. Occupational Therapist analyzed any score discrepancies in accordance with the test publishers directions. The discrepancy could indicate a weakness in motor skills. Students fine motor skills were in the average range. The difference in scores was not statistically significant or clinically meaningful. Occupational Therapist has no concerns about any of the areas tested by the DTVP. (Testimony of Occupational Therapist)
43. The SPM-2 provides a comprehensive overview of a students sensory function in the areas of vision, hearing, touch, taste and smell, body awareness, balance and motion, planning and ideas, social participation, and sensory total. Social participation and planning ideas are not sensory systems but need sensory systems to work efficiently. Social participation and planning ideas are not included in the total sensory score since they are not sensory systems. Occupational Therapist administers the SMP-2 fifty times per year. (Exh. B-8, S-28; Testimony of Occupational Therapist)
44. The SPM-2 is a questionnaire that a classroom teacher completes based on their observation of a student in the school environment. Classroom Teacher completed the questionnaire and scored Student Typical on all areas except social participation which was scored as moderate difficulties. Students Total Sensory System Score was Typical. (Exh. B-8, S-28; Testimony of Occupational Therapist)

Psychological Evaluation

45. School Psychologist evaluated Student on nine dates between January 14 and February 21. The evaluation consisted of administration of the WISC-V, NEPSY-2, BASC-3, SSIS-SSEL, Vineland-3, Conners-4, BRIEF-2, ASRS, SRS-2, ADOS-2, and observations in classroom and social settings. School Psychologist used multiple measures that work together to look at different behaviors so that the evaluation was comprehensive. Each of the administered assessments are technically sound and reliable, normed to avoid discrimination, and commonly used in evaluations. School Psychologist has the training and experience to administer each of the assessments. (Exh. B-9, S-29; Testimony of School Psychologist)
46. School Psychologist reached out to Students Mother to get information about the medications Student took prior to coming to school on the evaluation dates and checked with the school nurse to see if he took any medications at school. Knowing what medications a student is on is an important piece in understanding a student's functioning. (Testimony of School Psychologist)
47. School Psychologist reviewed the 2024 private evaluations and Students 2022 psychological evaluation as part of his record review. He did not include comparisons to those evaluations in his report because he wanted to focus on where Student is currently. (Testimony of School Psychologist)
48. School Psychologist observed Student in math class and at recess, which he took in the nurses office with another student that he invited to have recess with him. Student was very compliant in the classroom. He took direction from the teacher and paraeducator without argument or upset. He worked with his partners and also moved around the classroom talking to other students after which he settled down and continued his work. There was no peer conflict during the observation. (Exh. B-9, S-29)
49. The WISC-V is an individually administered comprehensive clinical instrument designed to assess intelligence of children aged six to sixteen. It assesses five cognitive areas: verbal comprehension index, visual spatial index, fluid reasoning index, working memory index, and processing speed index. School Psychologist is experienced administering the WISC, which he did fifteen times during the school year. (Exh. B-9, S-29)
50. Student has a lot of very strong cognitive abilities. His full-scale IQ score was in the 97th percentile, which is the Very High range. He scored in the Extremely High range on the visual-spatial index, and fluid reasoning index and High Average range on the verbal comprehension index, working memory index, and processing speed index. School Psychologist noted where there were statistical differences between certain scores, performed additional analysis, and indicated that Student has relative weaknesses, not normative weaknesses. Student visual-spatial index and fluid reasoning index represent personal strengths. (Exh. B-9, S-29; Testimony of School Psychologist)
51. Motivation and behavior are important in processing speed and attention. On the coding subtest, Student skipped an item if it was too hard. School Psychologist instructed him to not skip it and when redirected Student completed the task. This takes time that can impact his processing speed score. Student still scored High Average. School Psychologist has no concerns about Students overall processing speed. (Exh. B-9, S-29; Testimony of School Psychologist)
52. On the WISC-V ancillary indexes, which School Psychologist administered to be comprehensive and ensure they were not missing anything, Student scored in the Extremely High range for nonverbal and general ability and the High Average range for auditory working memory and cognitive proficiency. School Psychologist has not concerns based on these results. (Exh. B-9, S-29)
53. The NEPSY-2 is an individually administered comprehensive clinical tool that assesses neurocognitive development of children aged three to sixteen. It addresses attention and executive functioning, language, sensorimotor, visuospatial processing, memory and learning, and social perception. School Psychologist is experienced administering the NEPSY, which he did thirteen or fourteen times during the school year. (Exh. B-9, S-29)
54. Student scored in the Expected Levels range on the social perception assessment. School Psychologist noted that Student over-identified the angry expression, demonstrating a borderline level of difficulty. If Student is attributing the angry feeling to something that is not angry, it can impact his interpretation of interactions with others. (Exh. B-9, S-29; Testimony of School Psychologist)
55. Student scored At Expected Levels or Above Expected Levels on all but two scores in the attention and executive functioning domain. He scored Borderline on a task that requires him to respond to verbal language. An audio recording states a color such as red. Student has to sustain attention to listen to the audio and inhibit the impulse to touch the red item and instead touch blue. Student had a borderline number of errors which meant he either responded incorrectly (touching red) or responded correctly (touching blue) outside the time allotted to answer. School Psychologist opined that Students sustained attention abilities lessen when tasks require an additional load on working memory or executive control demands. (Exh. B-9, S-29; Testimony of School Psychologist)
56. The BASC-3 is a series of rating scales that provide a global look at internalizing and externalizing behaviors, emotional functioning, and self-perception. Classroom Teacher, Students Parents, and Student completed the rating scales to provide insight into Students functioning at home and in school. (Exh. B-9, S-29; Testimony of School Psychologist)
57. Students Mother noted the following concerns: has a hard time seeing the center of items and needs to move then around, useful to have larger font; understanding what he is hearing and acting on it; limited variety of foods due to texture, taste and familiarity, further limited if dysregulated. She noted the following strengths: resilient and understands he is not wrong just because others make fun of him; self-starter and can concentrate on preferred activities; does a lot of parallel play unless preferred activity or mandated activity; has neurodivergent traits considered strange by some people, they are a part of who Student is; does not like to disappoint non-parent adults and will do what is suggested to him to be left alone. (Exh. B-9, S-29)
58. Students Father noted the following concerns: when reading has to move the book around to see it; tendency to not understand what is being said and needs repetition several times; refuses to try new foods, must eat same foods every day. He noted the following strengths: positive outlook; accepts correction easily. He stated that he does not have any specific behavioral or emotional concerns and that several of the questions only gave an opportunity to discuss half of what we see regarding this topic. (Exh. B-9, S-29)
59. Classroom Teacher noted the following emotional strengths: Student has made many new friends this year and is liked by many of his peers; he engages with peers in the classroom and recess; prior to January 3 he always followed rules and expectations for classroom behavior. She noted as specific behavioral and/or emotional concerns: Since January 3, he has presented differently; has a very hard time sitting still, being focused, and showing self-control; needs many more reminders to stay on task and has been disruptive to classmate around him during whole call lessons and independent work time. (Exh. B-9, S-29)
60. On the behavior symptoms index, Students Parents each rated Students hyperactivity as Clinically Significant while Classroom Teacher rated it as Average. Students Parents and Classroom Teacher all rated aggression and depression as Average. Students Mother and Classroom Teacher rated attention problems as average while Students Father rates it as At-Risk. Students Mother rated Students Atypicality as At-Risk, Students Father rated it as Clinically Significant, and Classroom Teacher rated it is Average. Students Parents each rated Students withdrawal as At-Risk while Classroom Teacher rate it as Average. (Exh. B-9, S-29)
61. On the externalizing problems composites, Students Parents each rated Students hyperactivity as Clinically Significant while Classroom Teacher rated it Average. Students Parents and Classroom Teacher all rated aggression as Average. Students Mother rated conduct problems as At-Risk, Students Father rated it as Clinically Significant, and Classroom Teacher rated as Average. (Exh. B-9, S-29)
62. On the internalizing problems composites, Students Parents and Classroom Teacher all rated Student as Average on anxiety, depression, and somatization. (Exh. B-9, S-29)
63. Classroom Teacher rated Student as Average on attention problems and learning problems on the school problems composite. (Exh. B-9, S-29)
64. On the adaptive composite, Students Parent and Classroom Teacher all rated Student Average in adaptability and leadership. Students Parents rated him Average in social skills, while Classroom Teacher rated him At-Risk. Students Mother rated At-Risk in activities of daily living while Students Father rated him Clinically Significant. Classroom Teacher rated Student Average for study skills. Students Parents each rated Student At-Risk for functional communication while Classroom Teacher rated him Average. (Exh. B-9, S-29)
65. On content scales, Students Mother rated Student Average on anger control, bullying, emotional self-control, executive functioning, negative emotionality, and resiliency while rating him At-Risk for developmental social disorders. Students Father rated him Average on each of those areas except developmental social disorders and executive functioning which he rated as At-Risk. Classroom Tacher rated all areas Average. (Exh. B-9, S-29)
66. On the emotional symptoms index, Student rated himself as Average for social stress, anxiety, depression, sense of inadequacy, self-esteem, and self-reliance. On the school problems composite, he rated himself as At-Risk on attitude to school and attitude to teachers. On the internalizing problems composite, he rated himself Average on atypicality, locus of control, social stress, anxiety, depression, and sense of inadequacy. On the inattention/hyperactivity composite, he rated himself as At-Risk for attention problems and hyperactivity. On the personal adjustment composite, Student rated himself as At-Risk on relations with parents, Clinically Significant for interpersonal relationships, and Average for self-esteem and self-reliance. (Exh. B-9, S-29)
67. While there was a lot of agreement on some of the BASC-3 indexes, there were differences across raters. It is not uncommon to have differences in perceptions between home and school due to the difference in settings. (Testimony of School Psychologist)
68. The SSIS-SEL is a comprehensive evidence-based system that assesses social-emotional and academic competence. Students Parents, Classroom Teacher, and Student completed the rating forms. Student and each of his parents rated him Below Average for self-awareness while Classroom Teacher rated him Average. Students Parents and Classroom Teacher rated Student Average for self-management while he rated himself Below Average. Student, his parents, and Classroom Teacher all rated him Below Average for social awareness. Students Parents rated Student Below Average for relationship skills while Classroom Teacher rated him Average and he rated himself Well-Below Average. Students Parents and Student rated responsible decision making as Below Average while Classroom Teacher rates it Average. Classroom Teacher rated Students academic competence as Average. (Exh. B-9, S-29)
69. The Vineland-3 is a comprehensive norm-referenced assessment that evaluates adaptive functioning. It focuses on what a child actually does in daily life, not just what they child can do in a testing situation. Classroom Teacher and Students Parents each completed the rating forms. (Exh. B-9, S-29)
70. Combining scores from the nine subdomains in the three core areas of communication, daily living skills, and socialization, Students Mother rated Students adaptive behavior as Low, students Father rated it Moderately Low, and Classroom Teacher rated Adequate. There were discrepancies across the raters in each domain. (Exh. B-9, S-29; Testimony of School Psychologist)
71. Considering the rating scales and his classroom observation, School Psychologist noted interpersonal relationships as an area of need that Student can grow in. (Testimony of School Psychologist)
72. The Connors-4 looks at behaviors typically occurring with ADHD. Students Parents, Classroom Teacher, and Student completed the rating forms. (Exh. B-9, S-29; Testimony of School Psychologist)
73. Student, Students Parents, and Classroom Teacher all rated Student Average on emotional dysregulation, depressed mood, and anxious thoughts. Students Mother and Student rated Student Slightly Elevated on inattention/executive dysfunction while Students Father rated Very Elevated and Classroom Teacher rated Average. Students Parents both rated Student Very Elevated for hyperactivity while Student rated himself Slightly Elevated and Teacher rated him Average. Classroom Teacher and Student rated impulsivity Average, while Students Mother rated Elevated and Students Father rated Slightly Elevated. (Exh. B-9, S-29)
74. On the impairment and functional outcome scales, Students Mother, Classroom Teacher, and student rated him Average for schoolwork while Students Father rated him Slightly Elevated. Students Parents rated peer interactions as Very Elevated while Student and Classroom Teacher rated Average. Student and his parents rated family life as Average. (Exh. B-9, S-29)
75. The raters are asked to comment on specific problems, strengths, and skills. Students Mother commented that Student says that peers at school say he is too much and that they dont like how he is currently impulsive, talkative, invading space and conversations; he is a much happier kid overall; take into consideration how many times Student needs to be reminded to do tasks; Student does his homework and needs reminders every day to do it; Student is super smart, caring, funny and he has phenomenal visual spatial abilities. Students Father commented that Student states that he annoys kids at school which leads him to not being invited to parties and get togethers; he gets teased; he is resilient, kind, funny, and brilliant. Classroom Teacher commented that Student has difficulty sitting safely in his chair and attending/focusing on tasks especially in the afternoon; he can be disruptive to nearby students during independent work or whole class instruction; he has strong math skills; he excels at mental math and reasoning; he participates verbally during lessons and will come to the board to answer questions; he completes homework on time; he interact/plays with peers. (Exh. B-9, S-29)
76. On the ADHD index, Students Mother and Student rated Moderate while Students Father rated Very High and Classroom Teacher rated Borderline. (Exh. B-9, S-29)
77. The BREIF-2 is a norm-referenced rating scale that measures symptoms of, and impairments associated with, executive functioning skills. Students Parents and Classroom Teacher completed the rating forms. Students Parents reported elevated responses on behavior regulation, emotional regulation, and cognitive regulation scales while Classroom Teacher reported Average responses. (Exh. B-9, S-29; Testimony of School Psychologist)
78. The ASRS is a norm-referenced tool used to identify symptoms, behaviors, and associated features of autism. Students Parents and Classroom Teacher completed the rating scales. Classroom Teacher rated student Average across social/communication, unusual behaviors, and self-regulation. Students Parents rated social/communication as Slightly Elevated. Students Mother rated unusual behaviors as Very Elevated while Students Father rated Elevated. Students Mother rated self-regulation as Slightly Elevated while Students Father rated it Elevated. (Exh. B-9, S-29)
79. The SRS-2 is a rating scale designed to identify social impairments commonly associated with autism. Students Parents and Classroom Teacher completed the rating forms. Classroom Teacher rated Student Normal in each of the areas: social awareness, social cognition, social communication, social motivation, and restricted interests and repetitive behavior. Students Mother rated him Severe in social awareness, social cognition and restricted interests and repetitive behavior; Moderate in social communication; and Normal in social motivation. Students Father rated him Moderate in social awareness, social cognition, and social communication; Mild in social motivation; and Severe in restricted interests and repetitive behavior. (Exh. B-9, S-29)
80. The ADOS-2 is a standardized assessment that looks at communication, social interaction, play, restricted and repetitive behaviors in individuals referred for possible autism spectrum disorders. It relies solely on observed behaviors during the evaluation rather than reports from other contexts. School Psychologist was specifically trained and credentialed to administer the ADOS-2. Student was cooperative during the evaluation and occasionally struggled with sitting, opting to sit on his knees or stand near the table. He did not display signs of anxiety and did not display disruptive or negative behaviors. He did not exhibit signs of echolalia or stereotyped or idiosyncratic words or phrases. Student had difficulty maintaining social reciprocity while engaged in spontaneous information sharing. Student demonstrated inconsistent eye contact during the session. His overall score is consistent with the ADOS-2 classification of autism. The ADOS-2 Comparison Scale indicates that he displayed a moderate level of autism as compared with children who have Autism Spectrum Disorder and are of the same chronological age and language level. Being in the autism range on the ADOS-2 does not automatically mean that his primary special education category is autism. (Exh. B-9, S-29; Testimony of School Psychologist)
81. The assessments were administered one-on-one with minimal distractions, which make Students scores appear to be a reliable estimate of his abilities. Overall, School Psychologist observed that Student demonstrates strong cognitive abilities with behavioral inconsistencies that varies depending on the setting and the person interacting with him. (Exh. B-9, S-29)

Speech Language Evaluation

82. SLP evaluated Student on ten dates between January 15 and February 13. The evaluation was conducted to evaluate Students receptive, expressive, and social pragmatic language skills. It consisted of review of records and administration of CASL-2, CELF-5, SLDT-E:NU, and Social Communication Inventory from the RESCA-E. These assessments are widely used and are reliable and valid. SLP is trained and skilled in administering them. She administered each test in accordance with publisher instructions. (Exh. B-11, S-27; Testimony of SLP)
83. Students behavior during testing sessions was significantly different from his usual demeanor which SLP observed since beginning working with him in 2020. Students medication management changed in January 2025. The assessment manuals indicate that testing should take place in a quiet environment where the student is seated and can clearly see and respond to test stimuli in the books. Student often did not follow the directives to sit and attend to testing prompts. Student consistently requested to use flexible seating and fidgets to help him focus but they were often distractions. Due to these behaviors, it took five testing sessions to complete administration of the CASL-2 and two sessions each to complete the CELF-5 and SLDT-E:NU. SLP interpreted the results with caution due to these behavioral impacts. (Exh. B-11, S-27)
84. The CASL-2 is a standardized test that looks at oral language skills of individuals aged three to 21. SLP has administered the CASL-2 50 to 75 times. Student scored in the Average range for all areas: general language ability, receptive language, expressive language, lexical/semantic, syntactic, and supralinguistic. Students scores on the subtests were in the Average and Above Average range compared to his same-age peers, with the exception of idiomatic language which was Below Average. SLP is not concerned about his score on the idiomatic language subtest because they are not common expressions that people use, Student understood the essence of the idioms, and he demonstrated other forms of figurative language. (Exh. B-11, S-27; Testimony of SLP)
85. The CELF-5 assesses general receptive and expressive language ability. SLP has administered the CELF-5 more than 100 times. Student scored in the Average range in all areas: core language, receptive language, expressive language, language content, and language memory. He scored Average on eight of the nine subtests. He scored Low on the sentence assembly subtest. SLP was surprised but not overly concerned about Students score on the sentence assembly subtest due to the behavioral observations that impacted him on the test and because she found other areas where he was able to develop grammatically correct sentences. (Exh. B-11, S-27; Testimony of SLP)
86. The SLDT-E:NU is a standardized test that evaluates social language skills which are the ability to inference, problem solve, and respond to situation. SLP has administered this assessment 75 to 100 times. Student scored in the Average range overall. He scored in the Average range on two subtests (making inferences and multiple interpretations) and Below Average on two subtests (interpersonal negotiations and supporting peers). Student lost points on interpersonal negotiations for not using the first-person pronoun even though he demonstrated the ability to identify the problem from both parties perspectives, develop appropriate solutions, and justify his solutions.⁴ (Exh. B-11, S-27; Testimony of SLP)
87. The Social Communication Inventory from RESCA-E is a 28-behavior rating scale that gathers information about how a child interacts with other across settings in the real-world to get a picture of the childs social communication skills. SLP has administered this assessment more than 100 times. The assessment consists of rating scales completed by Students Parents and Classroom Teacher indicating what Student does in a typical day without being reminded, helped, cued, or rewarded. Students Parents each rated Student Below Average and Classroom Teacher rated him Average. SLP was not surprised by the difference in ratings. It is common to have different perspectives across different settings and social contexts. SLP is experienced administering the RESCA-E and has administered it about 100 times. (Exh. B-11, S-27; Testimony of SLP)
88. The evaluation covered each area at least two times and was comprehensive in evaluating Students receptive, expressive, and social pragmatic language skills which were each in the overall Average range. The evaluation produced no evidence of a communication disorder. SLP considered the statistically significant difference between the receptive language index and the expressive language index in relation to Students behavioral observations during testing. (Exh. B-11, S-27; Testimony of SLP)

Physical Therapy Evaluation

89. Physical Therapist conducted a physical therapy reevaluation of Student, which consisted of file review (previous IEPs, consultation notes and 2024 private evaluation), observation in the school setting, interview with Classroom Teacher, and administration of Gross Motor Performance Measure, which is an observational assessment, and SFA. Physical Therapist is experienced in assessing gross motor performance in students and administering the SFA. She has the requisite skills and experience to conduct the physical therapy evaluation which was done in accordance with the test publishers instructions. (Exh. B-10; S-30; Testimony of Physical Therapist)
90. During classroom observation, Physical Therapist noted that Student slouches and demonstrates fidgeting while seated and sometimes adjusts his seating position or stands at his desk. Student was able to complete his work and attend to the teacher. Student was able to move through narrow spaces within the classroom and step over and around obstacles without bumping. Student had a harder time sitting when he returned from winter break in January. (Exh. B-10, S-30; Testimony of Physical Therapist)
91. During assessments, Student was very cooperative and respectful and seemed to put forth his best effort. His focus and attention were appropriate in the one-on-one quiet environment. He appropriately requested a snack or rest break when needed. (Exh. B-10, S-30)
92. On the SFA, which is commonly used in school settings, Student scored 35/36 for participation. His raw score for task supports-physical tasks (assistance) was 16/16 and task supports-physical tasks (adaptations) was 15/16. Under activity performance-physical tasks, he scored 76/76 on travel, 43/44 on maintaining and changing positions, 44/44 on recreational movement, 64/64 on manipulation of movement, and 8/8 on up/down stairs. Physical Therapist had other staff, such as Gym Teacher and Classroom Teacher, report Students abilities for some of the items that she did not observe. (Exh. B-10, S-30; Testimony of Physical Therapist)
93. Students gross motor performance was measured through observation of functional skills. He was assessed on ability to complete the activities as well as the quality of his movements. Student performed age-appropriate skills with smooth coordinated movements. He demonstrated adequate strength, coordination, and stamina to complete all physical tasks throughout the school day. With his accommodations of flexible seating and unlimited access to a standing desk, Student can attend to instruction and complete classwork. The results appear to be an accurate measure of his skills. Physical Therapist has no concerns and believes Student does not need physical therapy to access his education. (Exh. B-10, S-30; Testimony of Physical Therapist)

Assistive Technology Evaluation

94. BOE did not fund an independent assistive technology evaluation because there were no concerns from any school staff that Student has problems accessing his education. (Testimony of Director)

March 7, 2025 PPT Meeting

95. In preparation for the March 7 PPT meeting, some school-based members of the PPT conferred to discuss areas for potential goals and objectives for Student. It is typical to have proposed goals and objectives to discuss with parents at a PPT meeting. Preparing for a meeting is not the same as predetermination. They went into the PPT meeting with an open mind and did not predetermine Students goals, objectives, primary eligibility category, or eligibility for ESY. (Testimony of Classroom Teacher, SpecEd Teacher, SLP, Physical Therapist, Director, Social Worker, School Psychologist)
96. Direct Behavior Ratings (DBR) is used to establish baseline behavior and monitor progress. It is part of the MTSS process used with many students. DBR is not an assessment to determine eligibility or identify a student with a disability. DBR was not used as part of Students triennial evaluation to redetermine his eligibility. (Testimony of Classroom Teacher, School Psychologist, SpecEd Teacher, SLP, Director, Social Worker)
97. SLP met with Students Mother prior to the March 7 PPT meeting to review the speech language evaluation. She reviewed the testing protocols and answered Students Mothers questions. The meeting lasted 60-90 minutes. (Testimony of SLP)
98. Prior to the March 7 PPT meeting, Occupational Therapist met with Students Mother for one-and-one half to two hours to review the testing protocols and answer questions. Students Mother took notes on her computer and traced the drawings that Student completed on the DTVP assessment. (Testimony of Occupational Therapist)
99. School Psychologist met with Students Mother prior to the March 7 PPT meeting to review the psychological evaluation and protocols. He went through a majority of the test scores with her. (Testimony of School Psychologist)
100. SpecEd Teacher met with Students Mother for 75 minutes prior to the March 7 PPT meeting to review the evaluation. She brough the test protocols for Students Mother to review. She did not see any scoring errors on the protocols. (Testimony of SpecEd Teacher)
101. Prior to the March 7 PPT meeting, Physical Therapist met with Students Mother for about fifteen minutes to review the protocols for the FSA assessment. (Testimony of Physical Therapist)
102. On March 4, Students Mother requested that the school nurse and Gym Teacher attend the March 7 PPT meeting. On March 5, BOE revised the meeting notice to invite the school nurse and Gym Teacher to attend even though BOE thought that their attendance was not necessary. (Exh. B-6, S-31, S-33; Testimony of Director)
103. On March 4, Director provided Students Parents with copies of the completed evaluations. (Exh. S-38)
104. School Psychologist was inadvertently not included on the first three PPT meeting notices. Director notified School Psychologist that he was inadvertently left off the invitation and asked him to attend. The notice of meeting was updated on March 7 to reflect that invitation. (Exh. B-6, S-31, S-32; Testimony of School Psychologist, Director)
105. At the March 7 PPT meeting, Director asked Students Parents if they consented to proceed with School Psychologist present and they said yes. School Psychologist attended the entire PPT meeting. (Exh. B-12, S-23; Testimony of Director, School Psychologist, Classroom Teacher, SpecEd Teacher, Occupational Therapist, Principal, Social Worker, Physical Therapist)
106. The school-based members of the PPT did not think it was appropriate for Student to attend the PPT meeting based on his age and the contentious nature of meetings between Students Parents and BOE and did not invite him. Students Parents did not invite Student to attend. (Exh. B-6, B-12; Testimony of Director, Classroom Teacher, SpecEd Teacher, SLP, Occupational Therapist, Social Worker)
107. Students Parents showed up at the March 7 PPT meeting, read a lengthy statement indicating that they would not participate until certain documents were provided to them, and left. Prior to them leaving, Director informed them that this was their opportunity to participate and that if they left, the PPT meeting would continue without them. They chose to leave. (Exh. B-12, S-23; Testimony of Classroom Teacher, School Psychologist, SLP, Physical Therapist, Occupational Therapist, Principal, Director, Social Worker)
108. Students Parents have provided BOE with a lot of information. The school-based members of the PPT considered input from both school and home. Students Parents responses on the rating scales were considered in planning Students IEP and primary eligibility category. (Testimony of School Psychologist, Director)
109. The PPT discussed Students Present Levels of Functional Performance which was based on Students classroom performance and evaluations. Because there are no academic goals in Students IEP, Present Level of Performance are not required. The IEP does include Additional Data/Assessment Information (not included in Present Level of Performance) for academics. Students updated academic information and evaluation data are in that section. (Exh. B-12; Testimony of Classroom Teacher, SpecEd Teacher, Principal, Director)
110. During the March 7 PPT meeting, the PPT reviewed and revised Students accommodations and assistive technology listed under Supplementary Aids and Services. They reviewed every item listed. They kept some items in the list that Student doesnt currently use so that they are available in case he needs them. (Exh. B-12; Testimony of Classroom Teacher, SpecEd Teacher, Social Worker, Occupational Therapist, SLP, Director, Physical Therapist)
111. During the March 7 PPT meeting, the PPT reviewed and completed the Worksheet for Determination of Eligibility for Special Education Services Under the Classification of Autism (Autism Worksheet). The PPT discussed each item on the worksheet. They reviewed the rating scales completed by Students and Students Parents when completing the worksheet. The eligibility discussion was a very long part of the lengthy PPT meeting. (Exh. B-13, S-25; Testimony of Classroom Teacher, School Psychologist, SpecEd Teacher, Social Worker, Physical Therapist, Occupational Therapist, Principal, Director, SLP)
112. All school-based members of the PPT participated in completing the Autism Worksheet. The PPT discussed and considered atypical behavior; social skills and interactions; navigating conflict; inferencing; perseveration, restrictive, and stereotyped behaviors; preferred interests; sensory issues; expressive and receptive language; pragmatic skills; reading comprehension; attention and focus challenges; and executive functioning. They discussed skill versus performance deficits. (Testimony of Classroom Teacher, School Psychologist, SpecEd Teacher, Social Worker, Physical Therapist, Occupational Therapist, Principal, Director, SLP)
113. The PPT considered Students educational performance, teacher reports, evaluation results, and parent and student rating scales. They exercised clinical judgment. On the worksheet, they listed the evidence observational, clinical judgment, and/or testing that were most impactful to each criterion. They considered the skills and deficits that were most impactful on Students education. (Testimony of Classroom Teacher, School Psychologist, SpecEd Teacher, Social Worker, Physical Therapist, Occupational Therapist, Principal, Director, SLP)
114. The results of the Autism Worksheet indicate that Student meets the criteria for two of the six areas under social interaction, none of the three criteria under communication, and none of the three criteria under atypical behaviors. A child needs to meet all three domains to be eligible under the autism category. The areas that are marked yes on the worksheet are covered by the goals and objectives in Students IEP. Students IEP will address his needs no matter what eligibility category is identified. (Exh. B-13, S-25; Testimony of School Psychologist)
115. All school-based members of the PPT agreed that OHI-ADD/ADHD is the appropriate primary eligibility category for Student. OHI-ADD/ADHD criteria are more impactful to Students education than autism criteria. (Testimony of Classroom Teacher, School Psychologist, SpecEd Teacher, SLP, Social Worker, Physical Therapist, Occupational Therapist, Director)
116. After completing the Autism Worksheet, the PPT determined that Student does not meet the criteria for the autism classification but does meet the eligibility criteria for OHI-ADD-ADHD and that he requires special education and related services. (Exh. B-13, S-25; Testimony of Classroom Teacher, School Psychologist, SpecEd Teacher, SLP, Social Worker, Physical Therapist, Director)
117. The March 7 IEP includes functional, not academic, goals: two communication goals, one social/emotional goal, and two executive functioning goals. The service grid indicates the responsible staff, service implementer, and instructional service delivery for each of the five direct services goals. Social Worker is Students case manager on this IEP. (Exh. B-12, S-23; Testimony of Social Worker)
118. The March 7 IEP includes special education services consisting of two sessions per month of executive functioning instruction in a related service setting for 30 minutes each (goals 14 and 15); two sessions per month of executive functioning support in the general education setting for 30 minutes each (goals 14 and 15); and one session per week of social skills group for 20 minutes (goals 11 and 12). (Exh. B-12, S-23)
119. The March 7 IEP includes one session per week of individual counseling for 10 minutes (goal 13) as a related service. (Exh. B-12, S-23)
120. The March 7 IEP includes 28 accommodations Technology under Supplementary Aids and Services. including: preferential seating for optimal attention including options for flexible seating options including s standing desk as well as support for the floor as needed; clear consistent expectations, prompt for attention when off task; allow approved and preferred manipulatives for self-regulation; no requirement for eye contact; allow wearing hat at school; extra time for verbal responses; pair auditory and visual information including written instructions for assignments; after a negative peer interaction, Student will follow up with SLP or Social Worker to process the interaction and complete the Blueprint from the RULER curriculum. The PPT discussed all of the supplementary aids and services and determined that they are appropriate to be available to Student. (Exh. B-12, S-23)
121. The March 7 IEP includes graphic organizers, computer mouse, noise cancelling headphones, and modified paper available as Assistive Technology under Supplementary Aids and Services. The PPT discussed these supplementary aids and services and determined that they are appropriate to be available to Student. (Exh. B-12, S-23; Testimony of Classroom Teacher, Director, SLP, Social Worker)
122. The March 7 IEP includes indirect services of consultation with general education teacher, case manager, SLP, and SpecEd Teacher 15 minutes monthly (goals 11 and 12); consultation with general education teacher and Occupational Therapist for 15 minutes per trimester; and consultation with general education teacher, case manager, Physical Therapist, and Gym Teacher 15 minutes per year. (Exh. B-12, S-23)
123. The IEP calls for Student to be in the general education classroom and curriculum. He is with non-disabled peers 97.69 percent of the week. (Exh. B-12, S-23)
124. The PPT considered Students eligibility for 2025 ESY. No school-based member of the PPT felt that Student will experience regression over the summer or have difficulty recouping skills in the fall. There were no concerns about Students continuity over school breaks. He did not experience regression or difficulty without ESY the previous year and made progress in the school year without it. There was no data indicating that Student did not do well over school breaks. No school-based member of the PPT felt that Student required ESY to access his education. (Exh. B-12, S-23; Testimony of Classroom Teacher, SpecEd Teacher, SLP, Social Worker, Director)
125. On March 10, BOE provided Students Parents with PWN indicating that the PPT proposes to change Students identification/eligibility category from autism to OHI-ADD/ADHD effective April 1. (Exh. B-12, S-24)
126. On March 13, BOE provided Students Parents with PWN indicating the PPT proposes to change Students IEP effective April 1. (Exh. B-12, S-22)

Request for IEE

127. On March 24, Students Mother requested multiple IEEs based on BOEs completed triennial evaluations as well as the absence of evaluations for previously known and still suspected needs of Student. The request did not identify which of the evaluations with which Students Parents disagreed. Director denied the request for IEEs and indicated that they would initiate a due process hearing to show that BOEs evaluation of Student was appropriate. (Exh. B-14, S-10, HO-2)

Request to Amend IEP

128. On July 8, Director emailed Students Parents to notify them that there was a clerical error in the Indirect Services section of Students March 7 IEP. The indirect services were to include Students executive functioning goals (14 and 15) as part of the consultation between Students general education teachers, case manager, SLP, and SpecEd Teacher. BOE offered to amend the IEP without convening a PPT meeting and provided Students Parents an agreement to sign agreeing to the change. As of the last hearing on July 28, Students Parents had not signed the agreement to amend the IEP. (Exh. B-30; Testimony of Director)

Conclusions of Law

1. A Hearing Officer appointed under 34 C.F.R. § 300.500 et seq. and Conn.Regs. 10-76h-1 et seq. has the authority (A) to confirm, modify, or reject the identification, evaluation or educational placement of or the provision of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to the child or pupil, (B) to determine the appropriateness of an educational placement where the parent or guardian of a child requiring special education has placed the child or pupil in a program other than that prescribed by the PPT, or (C) to prescribe alternate special educational programs for the child.⁵
2. A PPT is the IEP team as defined in the IDEA who participate equally in the decision-making process to determine the specific educational needs of a child with a disability and develop an IEP for the child.⁶
3. The PPT consists of the parents of a child with a disability; not less than one regular education teacher of the child; not less than one special educationteacher, or where appropriate, not less than one special educationprovider of the child; a representative of the school district who is qualified to provide, or supervise the provision of, specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of children with disabilities, is knowledgeable about the general education curriculum; and is knowledgeable about the availability of resources of the school district; an individual who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results; at the discretion of the parents or school district, other individuals who have knowledge or special expertise regarding the child, including related service personnel as appropriate; and, whenever appropriate, the child with a disability.⁷
4. Parents of a child with a disability must be afforded an opportunity to participate in meetings with respect to the identification, evaluation, and educational placement of the child; and the provision of FAPE to the child.⁸
5. The PPT may make a placement decision without the involvement of a parent if the school districtis unable to obtain parental participation in the decision. In this case, the school districtmust have a record of its attempt to ensure their involvement.⁹
6. A school district shall obtain informed parental consent prior to conducting any reevaluation of a child with a disabilityexcept that such informed parental consent need not be obtained if the districtcan demonstrate that it has taken reasonable measures to obtain such consent and the childs parent has failed to respond.¹⁰
7. Parental consent is not required before reviewing existing data as part of an evaluation or a reevaluation; or administering a test or other evaluation that is administered to all children unless, before administration of that test or evaluation, consent is required of parents of all children.¹¹
8. As part of a reevaluation, BOE must review existing evaluation data on the child, parent input, classroom-based observations, observations by teachers and related service providers, and any additional data needed to determine the educational needs of the child.¹²
9. In conducting an evaluation, BOE must use a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information about the child, including information provided by the parent; not use any single measure or assessment as the sole criterion for determining whether a child is a child with a disability and for determining an appropriate educational program for the child; and use technically sound instruments that may assess the relative contribution of cognitive and behavioral factors, in addition to physical or developmental factors.¹³
10. BOE must ensure that 1) assessments and other evaluation materials used to assess a child under this part (i) are selected and administered so as not to be discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis; (ii) are provided and administered in the child's native language or other mode of communication and in the form most likely to yield accurate information on what the child knows and can do academically, developmentally, and functionally, unless it is clearly not feasible to so provide or administer; (iii) are used for the purposes for which the assessments or measures are valid and reliable; (iv) are administered by trained and knowledgeable personnel; and (v) are administered in accordance with any instructions provided by the producer of the assessments;¹⁴ 2) assessments and other evaluation materials include those tailored to assess specific areas of educational need and not merely those that are designed to provide a single general intelligence quotient; 3) assessments are selected and administered so as best to ensure that if an assessment is administered to a child with impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills, the assessment results accurately reflect the child's aptitude or achievement level or whatever other factors the test purports to measure, rather than reflecting the child's impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills (unless those skills are the factors that the test purports to measure); 4) the child is assessed in all areas related to the suspected disability, including, if appropriate, health, vision, hearing, social and emotional status, general intelligence, academic performance, communicative status, and motor abilities; 5) the evaluation is sufficiently comprehensive to identify all of the child's special education and related services needs, whether or not commonly linked to the disability category in which the child has been classified; and 6) assessment tools and strategies that provide relevant information that directly assists persons in determining the educational needs of the child are provided.¹⁵
11. After completing an evaluation, the PPT determines whether the student is a child with a disability who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services.¹⁶
12. The FAPE mandated by federal law must include "special education and related services" tailored to meet the unique needs of a particular child and be "reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits."¹⁷
13. An IEP must include a statement of the child's present levels of academic achievement and functional performance, including how the child's disability affects the child's involvement and progress in the general education curriculum (i.e., the same curriculum as for nondisabled children); a description of how the childs progress toward meeting the annual goals will be measured and when periodic reports on the a progress the child is making toward meeting the annual goals will be provided; statement of thespecial educationandrelated servicesandsupplementary aids and services, based on peer-reviewed research to the extent practicable, to be provided to the child, or on behalf of the child; a statement of the program modifications or supports for school personnel that will be provided for the child; an explanation of the extent, if any, to which the child will not participate with nondisabled children in the regular class; a statement of any individual appropriate accommodations that are necessary to measure the academic achievement and functional performance of the child onStateand districtwide assessments; the projected date for the beginning of the services and modifications, and the anticipated frequency, location, and duration of those services and modifications.¹⁸
14. Related services means transportation and such developmental, corrective, and other supportive services as are required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education, and includesspeech-language pathology and audiology services, interpreting services, psychological services, physical and occupational therapy, recreation, including therapeutic recreation, early identification and assessment of disabilities in children, counseling services, including rehabilitation counseling, orientation and mobility services, and medical services for diagnostic or evaluationpurposes. Related services alsoincludeschool health services and school nurse services, social work services in schools, andparentcounseling and training.¹⁹
15. The standard for determining whether FAPE has been provided is a two-pronged inquiry: first, whether the procedural requirements of the IDEA have been met, and second, whether the IEP is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.²⁰
16. Where parents allege a procedural violation under the IDEA, a Hearing Officer may find a denial of FAPE only if the violation impeded the child's right to FAPE; significantly impeded the parents' opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of FAPE; or caused a deprivation of educational benefits. That shall not be construed to preclude a hearing officer from ordering a district to comply with the procedural requirements.²¹
17. To meet its substantive obligation under the IDEA, a school must offer an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the childs circumstances.²²
18. The proper gauge for determining educational progress is whether the educational program provided for a child is reasonably calculated to allow the child to receive meaningful educational benefits.²³
19. Factors to be considered in determining whether an IEP is reasonably calculated to provide a meaningful educational benefit is whether the proposed program is individualized on the basis of the student's assessment and performance and whether it is administered in the least restrictive environment.²⁴
20. An appropriate public education under IDEA is one that is likely to produce progress, not regression.²⁵ The IDEA does not require that the school district provide the best available educational program, one that maximizes a student's educational potential, or the one deemed most desirable by parents.²⁶
21. The proposed program or placement must be reviewed in light of the information available to the PPT at the time the IEP was developed.²⁷
22. IDEA regulations allow school districts to engage in preparatory activities to develop a proposal or response to a parent proposal that will be discussed at a later meeting.²⁸
23. Changes to an IEP may be made at a PPT meeting or by agreement of the parents and board of education.²⁹
24. BOE must provide written notice to parents of a child with a disability a reasonable time before they propose to, or refuse to, initiate or change the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child or the provision of FAPE to the child.³⁰ The written notice occurs after the PPT meeting at which the PPT proposes to, or refuses to, initiate or change the childs identification, evaluation, or educational placement or the provision of FAPE to the child.³¹
25. BOE has the burden of proving the appropriateness of a students program or placement by a preponderance of the evidence.³²

Discussion

Each of the issues identified in this case is addressed in this Discussion section. All evidence and arguments have been thoroughly reviewed and considered by the Hearing Officer.³³

BOE argues that a hearing officer in a previous case found that Student’s March 18, 2024 IEP was robust and provided Student with FAPE; Student’s presentation shifted in January 2025; BOE reevaluated Student as part of his triennial evaluation in early 2025; the triennial evaluation which identified Student’s strengths and needs was comprehensive and appropriate; the evaluations created a solid foundation for determination of Student’s ongoing eligibility and programming; there is a complicated dynamic with respect to BOE’s attempts to partner with Student’s Parents who attended the March 7 PPT meeting at which they made a lengthy statement, asked for the meeting which was noticed three months earlier to be rescheduled, and then left; the PPT meeting at which evaluations were reviewed and eligibility category and programming was decided was lengthy and robust; the resulting IEP increased Student’s overall special education hours; the PPT developed an IEP that appropriately addresses Student’s needs while allowing him to access and make progress in the general education curriculum; Student is making progress in the general education curriculum; Student’s Parents and the educational professionals see Student’s strengths, needs, and progress differently; Student’s Parents requested nine IEEs; the question here is whether BOE provided Student with FAPE and whether their evaluation was appropriate; BOE requests the Hearing Officer to find that BOE offered Student FAPE through the March 7 IEP and complied with the relevant procedural requirements and that Student’s Parents are not entitled to IEEs at public expense.

Student’s Parents argue that this case is about Student, Student’s Parents’ ignored advocacy for Student, and BOE’s continued pattern of excluding Student and his parents from educational decisions; BOE has repeatedly failed to provide Student FAPE in the least restrictive environment; BOE has a long history of not recognizing Student as a child who requires special education services and covering up data that support his areas of need; BOE staff have acted outside of their scope of practice, violated assessment administration procedures, and delayed assessments; BOE has denied Student’s Parents meaningful participation; BOE did not invite all required individuals, including Student, to the March 7 PPT meeting, refused Student’s Parents’ request to inspect all records used in the triennial evaluation, refused to provide a transcript of the PPT meeting, and refused to provide teaching methodologies to Student’s Parents; BOE did not obtain informed consent for all aspects of the triennial evaluation; BOE did not consider all of Student’s known or suspected needs in the evaluation or use all available information to accurately determine Student’s needs; BOE did not include Student, Student’s Parents, or all necessary staff in the evaluations; BOE ignored previous private evaluations and solely used information from their own evaluations in determining Student’s needs; BOE conducted the triennial evaluation earlier than it was due despite knowing Student had medical issues in January; BOE did not conduct specific and individual assessments using valid and reliable assessment methods or follow publisher protocols; the IEP is not rigorous and does not contain challenging goals and objectives that are measurable; the IEP was predetermined; IEP service grids are inaccurate; BOE changed Student’s eligibility classification without parental input or considering Student’s performance; BOE failed to consider related services, supplementary aids and services, Student’s communication needs or how his behavior impeded his education; Student’s report cards do not reflect his true progress; and BOE failed to provide timely and accurate notices and PWNs, accurately document Student’s Present Level of Performance or offer Student FAPE in the least restrictive environment.

1. Did the Board of Education fail to offer Student a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment for the 2025 extended school year and/or the 2025-26 school year at the March 7, 2025 Planning and Placement Team meeting?

   1. Inclusion of all required members of the PPT in the meeting

      Student’s Parents’ Amended Request for Hearing (Exh. HO-3) alleges that BOE did not invite School Psychologist to attend the March 7 PPT meeting until after it commenced and failed to invite the school nurse and Student to the meeting and that Student’s Parents did not excuse Student from attending the meeting.

      BOE sent Student’s Parents notices of the March 7 PPT meeting on December 9, 2024; December 12, 2024; March 5; and March 7. School Psychologist was inadvertently not included on the first three notices. Director notified School Psychologist that he was inadvertently left off the invitation and asked him to attend. The notice of meeting was updated on March 7 to reflect that invitation. At the meeting, Director asked Student’s Parents if they consented to proceed with School Psychologist present and they said yes. School Psychologist attended the entire PPT meeting.

      Student’s Parents were aware that they can request additional participants to attend a PPT meeting. They requested that the school nurse and Gym Teacher attend the March 7 PPT meeting. BOE invited the school nurse and Gym Teacher, and they attended the March 7 PPT meeting in its entirety.

      Student’s Parents did not request that Student attend. The school-based members of the PPT did not think it was appropriate for Student, a ten-year old, to attend a contentious PPT meeting and did not invite him.

      “Generally, a child with a disability should attend the [PPT] meeting if the parent decides that it is appropriate for the child to do so. If possible, the agency and parent should discuss the appropriateness of the child’s participation before a decision is made, in order to help the parent determine whether or not the child’s attendance would be helpful in developing the IEP or directly beneficial to the child, or both. Until the child reaches the age of majority under State law, unless the rights of the parent to act for the child are extinguished or otherwise limited, only the parent has the authority to make educational decisions for the child under Part B of the Act, including whether the child should attend an IEP Team meeting.”³⁴

      Student’s Parents did not invite Student to attend the PPT meeting.

      BOE did not fail to offer Student FAPE by not inviting Student and by issuing a late invitation to School Psychologist who attended the full PPT meeting with Student’s Parents’ consent.

   2. Accurate documentation and consideration of Student’s Present Level of Performance in developing IEP

      Student’s Parents’ Amended Request for Hearing (Exh. HO-3) alleges that BOE did not include accurate Present Level of Performance in all academic and functional areas. They allege that Student’s March 7 IEP states that Student has strengths in social communication yet included a social communication goal and that the IEP states that social communication is a weakness. The IEP states that Student has strengths in social communication skills in hypothetical situations and that he displays weaknesses in the application of social communication skills that he has learned, per the updated SLP report. (Exh. B-12) Those statements are supported by the speech language evaluation and SLP’s credible testimony.

      Student’s Parents also allege that the Present Level of Performance section does not include the 2024 private evaluations and that it refers a reader to Student’s special education record for a comprehensive review of Student’s academic assessment results and professional interpretations. Student’s Mother cross-examined witnesses on why evaluation reports and other data is not in the IEP. The evaluation results and Student’s school performance is summarized in the Present Level of Performance and Additional Data/Assessment Information sections of the IEP. The IEP also appropriately refers the reader to the full evaluation reports and Student’s education record for detailed information. (Exh. B-12)

      Student’s Parents allege that BOE failed to include an academic Present Level of Performance. Because there are no academic goals in Student’s IEP, the Present Level of Performance is not required for academics. The IEP does include Additional Data/Assessment Information (not included in Present Level of Performance) for academics. Student’s updated academic information and evaluation data are in that section.

      Student’s Parents allege that BOE did not include an accurate or complete Functional Present Level of Performance in the IEP but provides no specifics as to what is inaccurate or incomplete beyond the above-mentioned items. The allegations appear to be centered around the idea that the IEP does not include every piece of data that makes up Student’s performance and profile. Student’s IEP includes accurate documentation and consideration of Student’s Present Level of Performance.

   3. Change of Student’s primary disability classification

      Student’s Parents’ Amended Request for Hearing (Exh. HO-3) alleges that BOE did not consider Student’s unique needs or the services that he needs or all known information in considering Student’s primary disability category; that they made the change without parent input; and that BOE did not follow the Guidelines for the Identification and Education of Children and Youth with Autism.

      The school-based members of the PPT, who have experience completing the Autism Worksheet, testified that they spent a considerable amount of time during the PPT meeting reviewing the worksheet and discussing Student’s primary eligibility category. They considered Student’s performance as seen through observation, testing, and parent and student rating scales. They discussed Student’s strengths and weaknesses, what skills he has and needs to apply across settings, and the impact of his skills and performance on his education. The Autism Worksheet states what information was used in determining applicability of each characteristic. The evaluation results and observations support the result. There is credible evidence that the PPT considered Student’s unique needs and the services he needs and that they considered a vast amount of appropriate information related to Student’s performance and needs.

      Student’s Parents allege that BOE failed to follow the Guidelines for the Identification and Education of Children and Youth with Autism. No such guidelines were entered into evidence. The school-based members of the PPT involved in completing the Autism Worksheet credibly testified that they have experience working with children with autism, have experience completing the Autism Worksheet, and thoroughly reviewed Student’s performance and evaluations in completing the worksheet.

      On cross-examination, Student’s Mother questioned several PPT members about characteristics, particularly in the Communication realm, which were not marked as present on the worksheet. The PPT members credibly testified that it is not a question of whether Student has a certain trait or deficit but whether it is a “significant deficit” that “adversely affects” his educational performance.

      A child must meet two or more characteristics under Social Interaction and at least one characteristic under each Atypical Behaviors and Communication to be eligible under the primary category of autism. Student meets the criteria for two of the six areas under Social Interaction and none of the criteria under Communication or Atypical Behaviors.

      The PPT believes that the OHI-ADD/ADHD characteristics are more impactful to Student’s education than autism criteria. After completing the Autism Worksheet, the PPT determined that Student does not meet the criteria for the autism classification but does meet the eligibility criteria for OHI-ADD-ADHD and that he requires special education and related services.

      A child’s eligibility category is not dictated by a medical diagnosis but by the issues that most impact the student in school. In this manner, an IEP is tailored to a child’s unique needs and Present Level of Performance, not a diagnosis.

      There is ample credible evidence that the PPT considered all available information from observation, evaluation, and student and parent³⁵ rating scales and completed the worksheet with fidelity.

      BOE did not fail to offer Student FAPE by changing his primary eligibility category from autism to OHI-ADD/ADHD.

   4. Appropriate and measurable goals and objectives

      Student’s Parents’ Amended Request for Hearing (Exh. HO-3) alleges generally that BOE did not create meaningful or challenging goals or objectives for Student; the goals and objectives lack specificity to understand what Student is mastering and how; and BOE did not change Student’s goals from the previous IEP. They then cite specific alleged faults with each IEP goal.

      There is no overlap in goals between the ten goals in Student’s March 18, 2024 IEP (Exh. B-1) and the five goals in Student’s March 7 IEP (Exh. B-12, S-23). The March 7 IEP goals address some of the same issues – social communication, peer interactions, social emotional behavior, and executive functioning – as the previous IEP and are updated to reflect Student’s present level of performance and profile.

      Student’s Parents allege that the IEP includes two social communication goals and a goal to decrease making unrelated noises yet those are not endorsed on the Autism Worksheet. There was considerable testimony and cross-examination on the information reviewed and decisions made on the Autism Worksheet. The school-based members of the PPT were consistent in their testimony that Student has certain behaviors that are appropriate to be addressed in his IEP but that do not constitute significant deficits that adversely impair Student’s educational performance, which is the criteria on the Autism Checklist.³⁶ The decision to not check those boxes on the Autism Worksheet does not support a finding that the IEP goals around those issues are not appropriate. There is considerable credible testimony in the record that is supported by the evaluation results to find that those goals are appropriate for Student.

      Student’s Parents allege that goal 11 and goal 12 are exactly the same. Credible testimony from Classroom Teacher, Social Worker, and SLP and a plain reading of the goals indicate that they are not the same. Goal 11 focuses on increasing Student’s ability to ask peers about their thoughts, feelings or preferences. Goal 12 focuses on increasing Student’s ability to demonstrate consideration for peer’s preferences or ideas by modifying his behavior. (Exh. B-12)

      Student’s Parents allege that the trimester consultation between general education teacher and occupational therapist and the annual consult between general education teacher, case manager, physical therapist, and gym teacher do not have any goal aligned with them in the Indirect Services grid. Occupational Therapist and Classroom Teacher credibly testified that the once per trimester consult between them is an opportunity to check in on Student’s performance and accommodations; direct services were not recommended; the frequency and duration of the consultation are appropriate; and there are no goals tied to that consultation. The March 7 IEP does not include any direct services or goals related to this consultation, therefore there is no specific IEP goal to align with that consultation.

      Classroom Teacher, Social Worker (the case manager on this IEP), and Physical Therapist credibly testified that the once per year consult between general education teacher, case manager, Physical Therapist, and Gym Teacher is an opportunity to come together to discuss Student’s progress and issues they might be seeing with Student’s mobility based on his physical condition and because he will have new teachers and multiple classrooms to go to in the 2025-26 school year; to see if they need to make any changes; no concerns have been raised about Student’s mobility; it is important to have the structured time to consult; and the frequency and duration of the consultation are appropriate. The March 7 IEP does not include any direct services or goals related to Student’s mobility, therefore there is no specific IEP goal to align with that consultation.

      Student’s Parents allege that goals 11 and 12 have non-meaningful measurements because “occurrences is not meaningful unless it is a percentage of occurrences which meet the criteria.” Goals 11 sets a goal of increasing from baseline of one occurrence to six occurrences in three of four consecutive sessions. Goal 12 sets a goal of increasing from baseline of one occurrence to five occurrences in three of four sessions. SLP and Social Workers, who are services implementers on these goals, credibly testified that the goals are measurable and appropriate and that, based on observational data, frequency of the desired skills and behaviors will be tracked and compared to the baseline data and goal frequency. Student’s Parents presented no evidence that frequency is inappropriate and/or that percentage is appropriate.

      Student’s Parents cite additional allegations such as prior IEPs did not include a requirement of consecutive occurrences making goals in this IEP with a requirement of consecutive sessions nonmeaningful; goal 13 has a secretive scale system not shared with Student’s Parents and it’s doubtful that it is a standardized scale; and goal 13 contains no way to master it unless BOE “creates happiness” for Student. These arguments are without support or merit.

      There is ample credible evidence in the record that issues identified in the evaluations are appropriately addressed in Student’s goals and objectives, which are measurable. Examples include: Student’s movement in the classroom and conversations with other students is potentially distracting to his peers and reduction of that behavior is addressed in goals 14 and (Testimony of School Psychologist); Student’s over-identification of the angry feeling may impact his interpretation of interactions with others and is addressed in goal 11 (Testimony of School Psychologist); Goals 11 and 12 are related to communicating and working with peers collaboratively and address interpersonal negotiations and interactions that were identified in the speech language evaluation (Testimony of SLP); Self-reflection is an area of growth for Student and Goal 13 uses a self-reflecting tool to help Student identify how he felt about peer interactions and to get feedback on his social communication and interactions, which also supports goals 11 and 12 (Testimony of Social Worker, Classroom Teacher and Director).

      Based on the credible evidence in the record – both sworn testimony by the service providers and documentary evidence – about the appropriateness of the goals and objectives and lack of contrary evidence, the goals and objectives are found to be measurable and appropriate.

   5. Related services

      Student’s Parents’ Amended Request for Hearing (Exh. HO-3) alleges that BOE did not consider or identify all of Student’s special education and related service needs and that they did not consider nonacademic, functional, medical, adaptive, or developmental areas when determining programming.³⁷ The Amended Request for Hearing does not identify any related services that Student’s Parents believe should be provided to Student. In their post-hearing brief, Student’s Parents state that assistive technology can be a related service and that BOE declined to conduct an evaluation of Student’s needs.

      The March 7 IEP includes individual counseling as a related service and graphic organizers, computer mouse, noise cancelling headphones, and modified paper available as a supplementary aid of assistive technology. Occupational Therapist administered the Handwriting/Keyboarding Profile to identify any difficulties that a student might have and to inform about assistive technology that may be beneficial to support him. The PPT discussed Student’s supplementary aids, including assistive technology, and determined them to be appropriate based on his triennial evaluation and classroom performance. Based on that, they declined to conduct an independent assistive technology evaluation.

      At the meeting, the PPT reviewed every accommodation and assistive technology listed under Supplementary Aids and Services to ensure that he had appropriate aids and services available in case he needs them.

      The uncontroverted evidence in the record indicates that the PPT considered Student’s needs and educational performance when determining what related services, including assistive technology, was appropriate to allow him to access his education and be provided FAPE in the least restrictive environment.

      BOE did not fail to offer Student FAPE by not offering him additional related services.

   6. An IEP that is reasonably calculated to allow Student to make meaningful progress

      Student’s Parents’ Amended Request for Hearing (Exh. HO-3) alleges that BOE purposefully left out meaningful information that proves they have not provided Student FAPE in the least restrictive environment; denied Student’s Parents meaningful participation; did not consider all known and suspected needs when conducting the triennial evaluation or developing the IEP; did not develop accurate present levels of performance; did not consider any appropriate or necessary Supplementary Aids and Services needed to participate to the maximum extent; were unable to develop appropriate goals and objectives as a result of these failures; erred in changing Student’s primary eligibility category; failed to meaningfully consider ESY; and cherry-picked data to predetermine an IEP that does not provide Student with FAPE in the least restrictive environment.³⁸

      As indicated in other sections of this Final Decision, BOE included all appropriate members of the PPT; afforded Student’s Parents the opportunity to participate in educational decisions; conducted an appropriate triennial evaluation; accurately determined and documented Student’s present levels of performance; considered all known and suspected disabilities and needs; appropriately determined his primary eligibility category; developed appropriate and measurable goals and objectives; and considered and provided supplementary aids and services, including accommodations and related services.

      Credible evidence in the record indicates that the PPT did consider Student’s eligibility for ESY. No school-based member of the PPT felt that Student will experience regression over the summer or have difficulty recouping skills in the fall; they had no concerns about his continuity over school breaks; he did not experience regression or difficulty without ESY the previous year and made progress in the school year without it. The PPT reasonably determined that Student did not require ESY to access his education.

      Student’s Parents’ Request for Hearing made FERPA allegations that are outside the jurisdiction of a due process Hearing Officer. They sought to compel expansive production of documents that are outside the scope of this hearing and made multiple allegations that BOE has withheld data from them, which BOE disputes. There is no evidence in the record supporting the allegation that BOE left out meaningful information related to Student’s triennial evaluation and/or IEP or that they cherry-picked data to predetermine Student’s IEP.

      Classroom Teacher, who sees Student most in the school day, credibly testified that Student meets academic expectations; has weaknesses in attention, focus, increased impulsivity, and peer interactions; IEP supports help him access his education; he has been successful with those supports; she provided input to Student’s IEP based on her experience working with him; the March 7 IEP is based on his performance and evaluations and tailored to his needs; and the goals and objectives are appropriate for him.

      SpecEd Teacher credibly testified that she has no concerns about Student’s academic performance; the goals and objectives target weaknesses that are the most impactful for Student in the classroom; the IEP addresses areas of need identified in the evaluation; and the IEP services and supports are appropriate to allow Student to make progress.

      School Psychologist, SLP, and Social Worker credibly testified that they each believe that the March 7 IEP addresses the areas of need identified in Student’s evaluations and that it will allow him to make appropriate progress.

      Student’s March 7 IEP includes special education and related services that are tailored to meet his unique needs and are reasonably calculated to enable him to receive educational benefits. The IEP includes present levels of performance and how Student’s disability affects his progress in the general education curriculum and appropriate related services and accommodations. The IEP is individualized based on the triennial evaluation and Student’s performance and is administered in the least restrictive environment. Student’s IEP is reasonably calculated to allow him to make meaningful progress.

      On the second day of hearing, Director determined that there was a typographical error on the Indirect Services grid, which includes a monthly consultation between general education teacher, case manager, SLP, and Special Education Teacher. He testified that the purpose of the consultation as discussed at the PPT meeting was related to both the social communication (goals 11 and 12) and executive functioning (goals 14 and 15) goals. The service grid only indicates that it covers goals 11 and 12.

      Classroom Teacher testified that she is on consult to discuss things that might come up to better support Student. She cited handwriting and behavior issues that have been addressed in consultation services. Social Worker testified that it gives them an opportunity to discuss Student’s progress and make sure everything in his IEP is being implemented. SLP testified that the purpose of the consultation is to review Student’s progress and classroom performance. SpecEd Teacher testified that she is on consult as an indirect service to look at any executive functioning challenges and to discuss how Student is doing on his goals and objectives and in the classroom. None of the service providers on that consultation service identified it as being limited to goals 11 and 12.

      Upon realizing the error, Director initiated the IEP amendment process, notified Student’s Parents, and sought their consent to amend the IEP to include goals 14 and 15 under that consultation service. Student’s Mother rejected the characterization of the error as a clerical error and argued that it makes the IEP incomplete and that the IEP needs to be evaluated as it was presented to Student’s Parents, not as it is sought to be amended.

      The error is more than a misspelling or incorrect date and its impact must be considered. The error does not misstate Student’s present levels of performance, goals and objectives, special education and related services, supplementary aids and services, or any other direct services. The error relates to the indirect service that constitutes supports for school personnel on behalf of Student. The service providers credibly testified as to their understanding of the scope of the consultation, which goes beyond issues related to goals 11 and 12.

      The error omitting goals 14 and 15 from the Indirect Service grid does not render the IEP inappropriate or unable to allow Student to make meaningful progress. The error, which was identified before the IEP is implemented,³⁹ is a procedural error that did not impede Student’s right to FAPE, significantly impede Student’s Parents’ opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding provision of FAPE to Student; or cause a deprivation of educational benefit.⁴⁰

      BOE did not fail to offer Student FAPE in the least restrictive environment for 2025 ESY or the 2025-26 school year at the March 7, 2025 PPT meeting.

2. Did the Board of Education violate Student’s and/or Student’s Parents’ procedural rights?
   1. Informed consent for all assessments conducted as part of Student’s 2025 triennial evaluation

      Student’s Parents’ Amended Request for Hearing (Exh. HO-3) alleges that BOE conducted assessments for which informed consent was not requested or granted. Specifically, it cites a Handwriting and Keyboarding Profile conducted by Occupational Therapist and the use of DBR.

      DBR is used for progress monitoring and developing Present Level of Performance. It is not used as an assessment or evaluation to identify a student as a child with a disability or to determine eligibility for services. It was not used as part of Student’s triennial evaluation. Parental consent is not required to use a progress monitoring tool. Use of DBR in progress monitoring did not violate Student’s or Student’s Parents’ procedural rights.

      Although listed in Occupational Therapist’s evaluation report as an evaluation method or assessment administered, the Handwriting/Keyboarding Profile was not included on the consent form signed by Student’s Parents. Occupational Therapist typically does not obtain specific consent to administer it because it falls under fine motor and visual perceptive testing, which was included as a general category of assessment on the original unsigned consent form.

      Occupational Therapist testified that she frequently administers the Handwriting/ Keyboarding Profile to fourth, fifth, and sixth grade students to gain baseline information for an evaluation. Parental consent is not required before administering a test or other evaluation that is administered to all children unless consent is required of parents of all children. There is no evidence in the record as to whether administration of the Handwriting/Keyboarding Profile to fourth, fifth, and sixth grade students is to all students that does not require consent or whether the administration of it is limited to initial evaluations or reevaluations of students with disabilities for which consent is required.

      BOE describes the Handwriting/Keyboarding Profile as an informal student observation or review of work product that does not require parental consent. The evidence in the record – both documentary and sworn testimony – suggests that the administration of that assessment was more than an informal observation or review in this case. It was listed as an assessment completed as part of Student’s occupational therapy evaluation, not as progress monitoring and informal observation. BOE did not meet its burden of proving that the Handwriting/Keyboarding Profile was an informal observation or review of work.

      In its post-hearing brief, BOE accurately stated that “courts and IDEA hearing officers have expressly ruled that a request to list specific testing instruments or a parent’s placement of certain conditions on consent goes beyond what the IDEA requires for informed consent.” BOE could have treated Student’s Parents’ failure to sign the original consent form as lack of consent. They represent that “in an effort to work collaboratively with the Parents, the Board revised the consent form to list the specific testing instruments the Board intended to use as part of the triennial reevaluation.” Having modified the consent form and received consent for only those revised assessments, BOE limited itself to the enumerated evaluation assessments.

      BOE conducted the Handwriting/Keyboarding Profile without parental consent in violation of Student’s Parents’ procedural rights. The consequence of the violation is addressed in Section 3 below.

      Student’s Parents’ brief alleges that Physical Therapist conducted a classroom observation which was not on the consent form and argues that BOE should have obtained consent for that observation and for record reviews that were cited in the evaluation reports. There is no regulation requiring parental consent for record reviews or classroom observations. The PPT must review existing data, including classroom observations, as part of a reevaluation. Parental consent is not required for classroom observations and record reviews.

      Classroom observations and record reviews did not violate Student’s or Student’s Parents’ procedural rights.

   2. Untimely and/or inaccurate notices of the March 7, 2025 Planning and Placement team meeting and/or Prior Written Notices

      Student’s Parents’ Amended Request for Hearing (Exh. HO-3) alleges that BOE did not provide an accurate PPT meeting notice five school days in advance of the March 7 meeting; that as of March 5 the notice indicated that the meeting would be held via GoogleMeet, not at the elementary school where it was actually held as indicated on the March 7 notice; that the notice did not include School Psychologist until after the meeting commenced; and that none of the notices included Student as an invitee.

      Student’s Parents received notice of the March 7 PPT meeting on December 9, 2024 – three months prior to the scheduled meeting. On December 12, 2024, they received an updated notice adding Physical Therapist as an attendee. Prior to the meeting proceeding on March 7, Director indicated that School Psychologist was inadvertently left off the notice and asked Student’s Parents for permission to proceed with School Psychologist present. They consented. Although the first three notices stated GoogleMeet as the location, Student’s Parents appeared at the elementary school on time prepared to participate.

      The incorrect location and omission of School Psychologist from the notice are found to be clerical mistakes that are harmless errors that do not rise to the level of a procedural violation and that did not deprive Student’s Parents of their opportunity to meaningfully participate or impact Student’s education or right to FAPE.

      In the Amended Request for Hearing and their post-hearing brief, Student’s Parents allege that BOE failed to document certain actions in a PWN. The allegations regarding requests for an auditory processing evaluation in March and June 2024 are outside the scope of this hearing. The remaining allegations regarding inaccurate, untimely, or missing PWN relate to issues that are not documented with PWN (changing the location of the PPT meeting from GoogleMeet to the elementary school; adding School Psychologist to the invitation list).

      The record indicates that BOE produced timely and accurate PWN when it proposed changing Student’s IEP and primary disability category at the March 7 PPT meeting.

      BOE did not violate Student’s or Student’s Parents’ procedural rights in its provision of meeting notices and PWN.

   3. Conducting the March 7, 2025 PPT meeting without the presence of Student and/or Student’s Parents

      Student’s Parents’ Amended Request for Hearing (Exh. HO-3) alleges that BOE conducted the March 7 PPT meeting without Student and/or Student’s Parents present and refused to provide a transcript or recording of the meeting, thus denying them meaningful participation in Student’s education decisions.

      As discussed in Sections 1(a) and 2(b), BOE’s decision to not invite Student to the PPT meeting did not violate any procedural rights. Student’s Parents did not exercise their right to invite Student to the PPT meeting. There is no evidence that they were denied the opportunity to do so.

      Student’s Parents received four invitations to the March 7 PPT meeting, beginning as early as December 9, 2024. They showed up for the meeting, read a lengthy statement, and left. Prior to leaving, Director informed them that this was their opportunity to participate and that, if they left, the PPT meeting would continue without them. They chose to leave.

      The record of BOE’s efforts to ensure Student’s Parents’ involvement includes the four meeting notices dated as far back as December 9, 2024; Student’s Parents’ request, three days before the meeting, to have additional staff attend the meeting; their attendance at the meeting indicating that they were available; and the IEP notes that indicate Student’s Mother read a lengthy statement as her participation in the meeting.

      Student’s Parents were given a meaningful opportunity to participate in the PPT meeting and to offer input. They voluntarily chose not to take advantage of that opportunity.

      BOE did not violate Student’s or Student’s Parents’ procedural rights by continuing the PPT meeting after Student’s Parents voluntarily left after reading a prepared statement.

   4. Predetermining Student’s educational program for the 2025 extended school year and/or the 2025-26 school year

      Student’s Parents’ Amended Request for Hearing (Exh. HO-3) alleges that the March 7 IEP contains baseline data demonstrating that BOE developed Student’s goals and objectives prior to the PPT meeting and predetermined the results of the PPT meeting, and in doing so, eliminated meaningful participation by Student’s Parents.

      In preparing for the March 7 PPT meeting, some school-based members of the PPT conferred to identify potential goals and objectives to discuss at the PPT meeting. It is typical to have proposed goals and objectives to discuss with parents at a PPT meeting. They credibly testified that they entered the PPT meeting with an open mind to consider input from all team members, including Student’s Parents, and did not predetermine Student’s goals, objectives, primary eligibility category, or eligibility for ESY.

      The difference between preparation and predetermination is BOE’s willingness to be open-minded and to consider parent input and concerns. The PPT did not have an opportunity to meaningfully consider Student’s Parents’ input because they chose to leave the PPT meeting even after being encouraged to stay and participate.

      Student’s Parents’ post-hearing brief makes numerous allegations that BOE “cherry-picked” information and actions to ensure predetermined results in Student’s evaluations, eligibility category, and IEP. Student’s Parents did not testify or produce any evidence of such actions that counter BOE’s credible evidence that they were objective and open-minded and did not engage in predetermination. Each member of the PPT that testified indicated that they engaged in a thorough discussion for almost three hours to review evaluation reports, Present Level of Performance, proposed goals and objectives, and eligibility category.

      There is no evidence of predetermination or any injury as a result of BOE’s preparatory actions, PPT discussions, or IEP outcomes. BOE did not violate Student’s or Student’s Parents’ procedural rights.

3. If the answer to Issue Two is affirmative, did the procedural violations impede Student’s right to a free appropriate public education; significantly impede Student’s Parents’ opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding provision of a free appropriate public education to Student; or cause a deprivation of educational benefit?

   As indicated above in Section 2, the answer to Issue Two is negative with respect to all issues except consent to administer the Handwriting/Keyboard Profile in Section 2(a).

   Student’s Parents’ stated reason for asking for a more detailed consent form was to ensure that the same assessments were not utilized by both BOE and Student’s private providers close in time to avoid invalidating results.

   Occupational Therapist testified on cross-examination about certain of the assessments that should not be administered close in time to avoid invalidating results. The Handwriting/ Keyboarding Profile – which requires Student to handwrite and type certain provided sentences - was not one of the assessments about which Occupational Therapist was cross-examined by Student’s Mother on that issue. The Handwriting/Keyboarding Profile is not a standardized assessment or evaluation and there is no evidence that it can’t be repeated or that it was invalidated by any assessment administered to Student by a private provider.

   On these facts, administration of the Handwriting/ Keyboarding Profile – a procedural, not substantive, violation - was harmless error that did not impede Student’s right to FAPE, significantly impede Student’s Parents’ opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding provision of FAPE to Student; or cause a deprivation of educational benefit.

4. If the answer to Issues One, Two, and/or Three above are affirmative, what shall be the remedy?

   The answers to Issues One, Two, and Three are negative, making this Issue Four moot.

5. Was the Board of Education’s spring 2025 triennial evaluation of Student appropriate?

   BOE’s Request for Hearing (Exh. HO-2) alleges that it conducted a comprehensive reevaluation of Student in accordance with the IDEA in all areas of suspected disability; the assessments were conducted by individuals who by education, experience and certification were qualified to conduct them; the assessments were conducted in accordance with applicable standards and IDEA requirements; results of the evaluations provided the PPT with sufficient information to determine the Student’s eligibility for special education and related services and appropriate services; and in their IEE request, Student’s Parents did not express explicit disagreement with any of the evaluations.

   Student’s Parents’ Amended Request for Hearing (Exh. HO-3) alleges that the triennial evaluation did not consider all known and suspected areas of Student’s needs; did not utilize valid and reliable assessment methods; did not include Social Worker in the evaluation; did not include Student or Student’s Parents in several major areas of the evaluation; BOE proceeded with the evaluation knowing that Student’s medication regime had recently changed; and ignored previous findings from 2024 private evaluations.

   Student’s Parents allege that the triennial evaluation was not appropriate because it did not consider all known and suspected areas of needs and ignored previous findings from 2024 private evaluations. The Amended Request for Hearing and post-hearing brief specifically cite auditory processing concerns as being dismissed by BOE in the evaluation process.

   SLP credibly testified that auditory processing testing is not normed on individuals with neurodiversity profiles such as ADHD and autism, which was confirmed by the private audiological evaluation reviewed by the PPT in June 2024; based on her assessments and experience working with Student, she does not believe an auditory processing evaluation was necessary; she spoke with Classroom Teacher and other BOE professionals and determined that Student did not present as having auditory processing deficits in the classroom; with his accommodations, Student is able to follow directions and get his work done; SLP does not have concerns about Student’s auditory processing; and additional audiological assessments are not needed to determine Student’s eligibility for special education or to develop an appropriate IEP. There is no contrary evidence in the record.

   Student’s Parents allege that the evaluators did not utilize valid and reliable assessment methods. Specific allegations include that Physical Therapist did not use any standardized assessments or interview Student’s Parents; Physical Therapist did not utilize normative assessments despite known data showing that Student has difficulty with bilateral coordination; and the FSA is specifically for students with cerebral palsy.

   The original consent form included individually administered standardized and observation-based assessments to be conducted by Physical Therapist. Student’s Parents did not sign that consent form. The revised consent authorized Physical Therapist to conduct the Gross Motor Performance Measure and SFA, which are not standardized tests. She credibly testified that the assessments look at many areas of Student’s gross motor participation and his function in the school environment; that not being standardized does not mean that it is not comprehensive; and that she did not feel that any additional assessments were necessary to obtain relevant information. Physical Therapist credibly testified that the administered assessments are appropriate and that she does not typically include a parent interview in a school-based assessment.

   Physical Therapist credibly testified that the Gross Motor Performance Measure included assessments of bilateral coordination and gave several examples; that she did not observe any bilateral coordination concerns in the evaluation or when she observed him in class; no school staff raised bilateral coordination concerns; and Student does not require direct or indirect services related to bilateral coordination.

   Physical Therapist credibly testified that the FSA is for school children from kindergarten through sixth grade and that it is not intended for a specific diagnosis such as cerebral palsy. There is no evidence to the contrary in the record.

   On cross-examination, they questioned Occupational Therapist about her use of the BOT-2 instead of BOT-3. She credibly testified that the updated BOT-3 was released in July 2024; the BOT-2 can be used for one year after the BOT-3 release; BOE received the BOT-3 in March 2025, after Student’s evaluation in January 2025. There is no evidence to the contrary in the record.

   Student’s Parents argue that Social Worker was not included in the triennial evaluation as evidence that they did not consider all known or suspected areas. On cross-examination, Student’s Mother asked specifically about why Social Worker was not asked to complete pragmatic language rating scales. SLP credibly testified that Social Worker could have been a candidate to complete rating scales; Social Worker’s work with Student is more counseling; SLP already had three people complete rating scales; and she did not think that, in her clinical judgment, additional information was needed. Social Worker was present at the PPT meeting where the evaluations were discussed. She testified that she did not have any concerns about the evaluations and did not think that any additional testing was necessary.

   Student’s Parents allege that BOE did not include them or Student in several major areas of the evaluation, without identifying which areas. School Psychologist reached out to Student’s Mother to obtain medical information at the outset of the evaluation process; Student’s Parents each completed eight rating forms and had the opportunity to write additional comments and concerns, which they did; Student underwent observations and testing and completed four rating forms himself over 29 testing sessions. The evaluators credibly testified that they included input from Student’s Parents where appropriate. There is no contrary evidence in the record.

   Student’s Parents allege that BOE proceeded with the evaluation knowing that Student’s medication regime had recently changed. Principal credibly testified that the evaluation is conducted to determine Student’s current profile and performance, not around medication decisions. The credible evidence in the record indicates that Student informed SLP that there was a change in his medication in early January and that the school team noticed changes in his behavior beginning around that time. The evaluations reflect those behaviors. Student’s Parents presented no testimony or evidence as to the nature or duration of the medication change to support a finding that a delay in the evaluation would have been necessary or appropriate. Any later changes in Student’s profile or performance can be addressed by the PPT.

   Student’s Parents allege that the 2025 triennial evaluation ignored previous findings from 2024 private evaluations. Occupational Therapist reviewed the 2024 private BOT-2 evaluation as part of her comprehensive evaluation; School Psychologist reviewed the 2024 private evaluations and Student’s 2022 psychological evaluation; Physical Therapist reviewed a 2024 evaluation; Student’s behavior and attention changed since the 2024 private evaluations; the triennial evaluation captured Student’s current performance and profile so that the PPT could make decisions about Student’s current eligibility and programming needs. The 2025 triennial evaluation was a comprehensive assessment of Student’s current skills, abilities and needs.

   Director credibly testified that, given Student’s performance, BOE would not typically do as much testing as was done for Student’s triennial; they did more than the typical amount of testing to make sure they hit everything; and the results gave the team sufficient information to determine Student’s eligibility and program.

   The evaluators reviewed existing data, conducted classroom observations, consulted with teachers and related service providers, and considered parent input. Four of the five evaluators have known and worked with Student through his IEP prior to the triennial evaluation. They used their experience and knowledge to plan and implement the evaluation to assess all known and suspected areas.

   The evaluators used a variety of assessment tools to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information about Student. The utilized tools were tailored to assess specific areas of educational need.

   The evaluators credibly testified that they used technically sound, reliable, and valid instruments, that they have the requisite training and experience to administer the assessments, and that they did so according to publisher guidelines. They credibly testified that the evaluation provided information that directly assisted the PPT in making decisions about Student’s eligibility and programming and that did not need any additional testing or information.

   BOE’s 2025 triennial evaluation of Student was appropriate.

6. If the answer to Issue Five above is negative, are Student’s Parents entitled to an Independent Education Evaluation at public expense?

   The answer to Issue Five above is not negative, making this Issue Six moot.

FINAL DECISION AND ORDER

The Board of Education did not fail to offer Student a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment for the 2025 extended school year and/or the 2025-26 school year at the March 7, 2025 Planning and Placement Team meeting.

The Board of Education did not violate Student’s and/or Student’s Parents’ procedural rights such that they impeded Student’s right to a free appropriate public education; significantly impeded Student’s Parents’ opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding provision of a free appropriate public education to Student; or caused a deprivation of educational benefit.

The Board of Education’s spring 2025 triennial evaluation of Student was appropriate. Student’s Parents are not entitled to an Independent Education Evaluation at public expense.

Pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(iii) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.513(a)(3), the Board of Education is ordered to amend Student’s March 7, 2025 Individualized Education Program Indirect Services grid to add Goals 14 and 15 under Goal ID for the monthly Consultation with the general education teacher, case manager, SLP, and Sped teacher; unless the parties have already mutually agreed in a writing to another amendment for that consultation service.

---

Notes

1. In order to comply with the confidentiality requirements of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, 20 U.S.C. 1232g (FERPA) and related regulations at 34 C.F.R. § 99, this decision uses Student, Parents, and titles of certain school staff members and witnesses in place of names and other personally-identifiable information. ↩
2. All dates are 2025 unless otherwise indicated. ↩
3. The Relevant Findings of Fact section includes only evidence that was admitted into the record as sworn testimony subject to cross-examination or as full documentary exhibits at hearing. ↩
4. SLP contacted the test publisher about the error pattern, which comes up consistently. (Testimony of SLP) ↩
5. C.G.S. § 10-76h(d)(1). ↩
6. Conn.Regs. § 10-76a-1(14). ↩
7. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(B); 34 C.F.R. § 300.321(a). ↩
8. 34 C.F.R. § 300.501(b)(1); Conn.Regs. § 10-76d-12(a). ↩
9. 34 C.F.R. § 300.501(c)(4); Conn.Regs. 10-76d-12(a). ↩
10. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(c)(3); 34 C.F.R. 300.300(c); Conn.Regs. § 10-76d-8(b). ↩
11. 34 C.F.R. § 300.300(d)(1). ↩
12. 34 C.F.R. § 300.305. ↩
13. 34 C.F.R. § 300.304(b). ↩
14. 34 C.F.R. § 300.304(c). ↩
15. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b); 34 C.F.R. § 300.8, 300.306. ↩
16. Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 207; Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 1998). ↩
17. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320. ↩
18. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(26); 34 C.F.R. § 300.34(a). ↩
19. Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982). ↩
20. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E); 34 C.F.R. § 300.513(a); Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 127 S. Ct. 1994, 2001 (2007). ↩
21. Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, 580 U.S. 386, 137 S.Ct. 988, 999 (2017). ↩
22. Mrs. B. v. Milford Board of Education, 103 F.3d 1114, 1120 (2d Cir. 1997). ↩
23. 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(5)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.114(a); A.S. v. Board of Education of West Hartford, 35 IDELR 179 (D. Conn. 2001), affd, 47 Fed. Appx. 615 (2d Cir. 2002); M.C. ex rel. Mrs. C. v. Voluntown Bd. of Educ., 122 F.Supp.2d 289, 292 n.6 (D.Conn. 2000). ↩
24. Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 130 (2d Cir. 1998); Mrs. B. v. Milford Bd. of Educ., 103 F.3d 1114, 1121 (2d Cir. 1997). ↩
25. B. L. v. New Britain Bd. of Educ., 394 F. Supp. 2d 522, 537 (D. Conn. 2005). ↩
26. 34 C.F.R. § 300.501(b); T.P. v. Mamaroneck Union Free Sch. Dist.,51 IDELR 176(2d Cir. 2009). ↩
27. 34 C.F.R. § 300.324(a)(4), (6). ↩
28. 20 U.S.C. 1415(b)(2)(3); 34 C.F.R. 300.503(a); Conn.Regs. § 10-76d-8(a). ↩
29. Conn.Regs. § 10-76h-14. ↩
30. Student’s Parents’ Amended Request for Hearing (Case 25-0496) (Exh. HO-3) and BOE’s Request for Hearing (Case 25-0521) (Exh. HO-2) constitute allegations, not evidence. The parties’ opening statements at hearing and post-hearing briefs constitute argument, not evidence. Student’s Parents did not testify. They did not offer testimony from anyone other than BOE staff. All but five of their admitted exhibits were duplicates of BOE exhibits. In deciding this case, the Hearing Officer has considered the allegations, evidence that was admitted into the record as sworn testimony subject to cross-examination or as full documentary exhibits, and the parties’ legal arguments. ↩
31. Student’s Parents’ Amended Request for Hearing and post-hearing brief include allegations and argument involving testimony and/or issues from their previous completed due process case. Those issues are outside the scope of this hearing and are not considered in the determination of the issues in this case. ↩
32. Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities and Preschool Grants for Children With Disabilities; Final Rule, 71Fed. Reg. 46671(Aug. 14, 2006) [emphasis added]. ↩
33. Multiple members of the PPT testified that they considered rating scales completed by Student’s Parents who voluntarily left the PPT meeting prior to the eligibility discussion. See Section 2(c) for discussion about the continuation of the PPT meeting in Student’s Parents’ absence. ↩
34. See Section 1(c) for a discussion of the Autism Worksheet in relation to the decision to change Student’s primary eligibility category. ↩
35. In support of this allegation, the Amended Request for Hearing cites examples and testimony from a prior due process hearing which is outside the scope of this hearing. ↩
36. Many of these allegations are addressed in other sections and are not repeated here. ↩
37. The March 7 IEP as presented to Student’s Parents in the March 13 PWN has not yet been implemented due to the March 18, 2024 IEP being Student’s stay-put placement during the pendency of this hearing. ↩
38. Although the error did not result in a substantive FAPE violation, a Hearing Officer may order BOE to comply with procedural requirements. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(iii); 34 C.F.R. § 300.513(a)(3); An appropriate order is entered in the Final Decision and Orders, below. ↩
39. As discussed in Section 1(a), BOE’s decision to not invite Student to the PPT meeting did not result in a denial of FAPE. Nor did it violate any procedural rights. Student’s Parents did not exercise their right to invite Student to the PPT meeting. There is no evidence that they were denied the opportunity to do so. ↩
40. Student’s Parents did not testify and did not offer any witnesses or documentary evidence that any similar assessment was conducted or being contemplated to be conducted by Student’s private providers or that, if such assessment was being performed, that either assessment were at risk of being invalidated. ↩