Connecticut State Department of Education

Final Decision and Order 25-0258 and 25-0272

January 5, 2026

Student v. Board of Education/Enfield Board of Education vs Student

Appearing on behalf of the Parent:

Dana Jonson Esq
Law Offices of Dana A. Jonson, LLC
13 Starr Lane
Bethel, CT 06801

Appearing on behalf of the District:

Christine Chinni Esq
Chinni & Associates
14 Station Street
Simsbury, CT 06082

Appearing before:

Patrick L. Kennedy, Esq.
Hearing Officer

Final Decision and Order

Issues:

  1. Was the educational evaluation provided by the District appropriate?
  2. Did the District offer an appropriate program to the Student for the 2024-25 school year?
  3. Did the District commit procedural violations amounting to a denial of FAPE for the 2024-25 school year?
  4. If the District has committed any violations, what remedies should be ordered?

Procedural History:

Case 25-0258 was commenced by the Parents by request received by the District on November 13, 2024 and assigned to Hearing Officer Kelly Moyher. Case 25-0272 was commenced by the District on November 20, 2024 and assigned to the undersigned Hearing Officer. On December 3, 2024, Hearing Officer Moyher issued an order consolidating the two cases and assigning the combined cases to the undersigned Hearing Officer.

A prehearing conference was held on January 8, 2025. At the prehearing conference, a hearing date was set for March 3, 2025 and the decision date was determined to be February 3, 2025.

The initial hearing date set for the case was cancelled while the parties attempted to settle the matter. The decision date was extended to March 5, 2025; April 4, 2025; May 2, 2025; June 4, 2025; July 3, 2025; August 1, 2025; September 2, 2025; October 2, 2025; October 31, 2025; December 1, 2025 and December 31, 2025.

Hearings were held on October 2, 2025 and October 10, 2025.

The following witnesses testified on behalf of the District:

  • [REDACTED], school psychologist  
  • [REDACTED], special education teacher  
  • [REDACTED], regular education teacher 
  • [REDACTED], school principal

The following witnesses testified on behalf of the Parents:

  • Mother
  • [REDACTED]
  • [REDACTED]
  • Father

Hearing Officer HO-1 was entered as a full exhibit.

Board exhibits B1 through B-12 were entered as full exhibits.

Parent exhibits P-1 through P-13 and P-16 through P-17 were entered as full exhibits.

All motions and objections not previously ruled upon, if any, are hereby overruled.

This Final Decision and Order sets forth the Hearing Officer's summary, findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth herein, which reference certain exhibits and witness testimony, and are not meant to exclude other supported evidence in the record. All evidence presented was considered in deciding this matter. To the extent that the summary, procedural history and findings of fact actually represent conclusions of law, they should be so considered and vice versa. SAS Institute Inc. v. S&H Computer Systems, Inc., 605 F.Supp. 816 (M.D.Tenn. 1985); Bonnie Ann F. v. Calallen Independent School Board, 835 F.Supp. 340 (S.D. Tex. 1993).

Statement of Jurisdiction:

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

Findings of Fact:

After considering all the evidence submitted by the Parties, including documentary evidence and testimony of witnesses, I find the following facts:

  1. The Student, whose date of birth is 8/21/14, is a sixth-grade student at John F. Kennedy Middle School1 in Enfield.2 (P-1.)
  2. The Student is identified for special education under the category of Specific Learning Disability (SLD). (P-1.)
  3. The Student was first identified for special education in 2021. (P-1.)
  4. The Student was attending Parkman Elementary School during fifth grade at the time of the evaluations in question. (P-1.)
  5. The Student was previously attending Parkman Elementary School. (P-1.)
  6. The Complaint was filed by the Parents on a pro se basis and the Parents were pro se at the prehearing conference where issues were discussed. While the primary focus of the Complaint was the decision to exit the Student from special education some of the language could be read to indicate that the IEP was not altogether adequate (although the relief requested was to maintain the current IEP. After the presentation of evidence, it is clear that the adequacy of the IEP is not at issue.
  7. The evaluation was conducted by school psychologist [REDACTED].  (B-5, Testimony of [REDACTED], 10/2/25.)
  8. [REDACTED] is a certified school psychologist by the Connecticut Department of Education.  (B-10.)
  9. [REDACTED] has also received certifications in Trauma Focused—Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Cognitive Behavioral Intervention for Trauma in Schools and Bounce Back Child Trauma Counseling and has passed the Praxis School Psychologist Exam.  (B-10.)
  10. [REDACTED] has received a Masters degree and Sixth-Year Certificate in School Psychology.  (B-10.)
  11. [REDACTED] has worked as a school psychologist in the Tolland and Enfield school districts since 2022.  (B-10.)
  12. [REDACTED] has performed 130 or more psychoeducational evaluations during his tenure.  (Testimony of [REDACTED], 10/2/25.)
  13. The evaluation consisted of a record review, clinical observations, the Wechsler Intelligence Score for Children, Fifth Edition (WISC-V), the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, Fourth Edition (WIAT-4) and Behavior Assessment System for Children, Third Edition (BASC-3), the latter of which incorporated reports from the parents and teacher.  (B-5.)
  14. The evaluator observed the Student in his classroom for approximately 20 minutes with no interaction between the observer and the Student.  (B-5.)
  15. The Student's behavior was observed to be appropriate, cooperative, attentive and not disruptive.  (B-5.)
  16. The WISC-V measures a child's ability across five areas of cognitive functioning,  (B-5; Testimony of [REDACTED], 10/2/25.)
  17. The Student's scores on the WISC-V were overall in the average range.  (B-5.)
  18. The Student's intelligence quotient (IQ) was 92, at the 30th percentile, which was again in the average range.  (B-5; Testimony of [REDACTED], 10/2/25.)
  19. The only area in which the Student was below average on the WISC-V was fluid reasoning, in which the Student had a low average score.  (B-5.)
  20. The low average score was not more than one standard deviation from average.  (Testimony of [REDACTED]. 10/2/25.)
  21. The WIAT-4 measures current academic functioning and progress in reading, mathematics and written expression.  (B-5; Testimony of [REDACTED], 10/2/25.)
  22. The Student's scores on the WIAT-4 were in the high average range for reading comprehension and reading overall and otherwise in the average range.  (B-5.)
  23. The BASC-3 assesses children from a social-emotional standpoint and executive functioning.  (B-5; Testimony of [REDACTED], 10/2/25.)
  24. The BASC-3 contains rating scales which are completed by both teachers and parents.  (B-5; Testimony of [REDACTED], 10/2/25.)
  25. On the BASC-3, the teacher's ratings on the clinical scales found the Student to be at-risk in the areas of learning problems and school problems but otherwise average.  (B-5.)
  26. The Parents' ratings found the Student to be at-risk for somatization and attention problems but otherwise average.  (B-5.)
  27. On the adaptive scales, the teacher found the Student to be at-risk for social skills, leadership and adaptive skills but average for adaptability, study skills and functional communication.  (B-5,)
  28. The Parents found the Student to be average for adaptability and social skills but at risk in the other categories.  (B-5.)
  29. Neither the teacher nor the Parents rated the Student as "clinically significant" in any category.  (B-5.)
  30. In the Executive Functioning Index, the Student was rated as "not elevated" in all categories by both the teacher and the Parents, except that the Parents rated him as "elevated" in the attentional control index.  (B-5.)
  31. The evaluation made no specific recommendations on whether the Student continued to qualify for special education.  (B-5; Testimony of [REDACTED], 10/2/25.)
  32. The PPT met on November 7, 2024 to review the results of the evaluation.  (B-4.)
  33. Present at the meeting were the Parents; Irene Roman, principal; Casey Kwiecienski, general education teacher; Mary Paradiso, special education teacher; [REDACTED], school psychologist and [REDACTED], school counselor.  (B-4.)
  34. [REDACTED] presented the results of the evaluation to the PPT.  (B-4.)
  35. The PPT discussed the evaluation, the Student's progress on his goals and objectives, his academic performance and classroom observations of the Student.  (B-4.)
  36. The Student was performing at a level that did not even meet the criteria for tiered intervention, which is an approach used in general education, let alone special education.  (Testimony of [REDACTED], 10/2/25.)
  37. The Student had mastered his previous goals and was progressing on new ones.  (Testimony of [REDACTED], 10/2/25.)
  38. The Student was performing work in regular education at grade level.  (Testimony of [REDACTED], 10/2/25.)
  39. The PPT completed the SLD checklist.  (B-4.)
  40. The school-based members of the PPT all agreed that the Student did not meet the criteria for SLD and did not qualify for special education.  (B-4.)
  41. The Parents did not agree with the decision of the PPT.  (B-4.)

Conclusions of Law and Discussion:

1. Was the educational evaluation provided by the District appropriate?

34 C.F.R. §300.304 (b) provides,

Conduct of evaluation. In conducting the evaluation, the public agency must—

  1. 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, that may assist in determining—
    1. Whether the child is a child with a disability under §300.8; and
    2. The content of the child's IEP [Individualized Education Program], including information related to enabling the child to be involved in and progress in the general education curriculum (or for a preschool child, to participate in appropriate activities);
  2. Not use any single measure or assessment as the sole criterion for determining whether a child is a child is a child with a disability and for determining an appropriate educational program for the child; and
  3. Use technically sound instruments that may assess the relative contribution of cognitive and behavioral factors, in addition to physical or developmental factors.

34 C.F.R. §300.304(c) provides,

Other evaluation procedures. Each public agency must ensure that—

  1. Assessments and other evaluation materials used to assess a child under this part—
    1. Are selected and administered so as not to be discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis;
    2. 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;
    3. Are used for the purposes for which the assessments or measures are valid and reliable;
    4. Are administered by trained and knowledgeable personnel; and
    5. Are administered in accordance with any instructions provided by the producer of the assessments.
  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. Assessments of children with disabilities who transfer from one public agency to another public agency in the same school year are coordinated with those children's prior and subsequent schools, as necessary and as expeditiously as possible, consistent with §300.301(d)(2) and (e), to ensure prompt completion of full evaluations.
  6. In evaluating each child with a disability under §§300.304 through 300.306, the evaluation is sufficiently comprehensive to identify the child's special education and related service needs, whether or not commonly linked to the disability category in which the child has been classified.
  7. Assessment tools and strategies that provide relevant information that directly assists persons in determining the educational needs of the child are provided.

Applying these standards, the undersigned finds that the psychoeducational evaluation was appropriate. The evaluator used a variety of assessment tools. (Finding of Fact 13.) The evaluator did not use any single measure or assessment as the sole criterion for determining whether the Student had a disability. (Findings of Fact 13-30.) The evaluator used technically sound instruments to assess the relative contribution of cognitive and behavioral factors, in addition to physical or developmental factors. (Findings of Fact 14, 16, 21 and 23.) The individual administering the assessments was trained and knowledgeable. (Findings of Fact 7-12.) The assessments were administered in accordance with the instructions provided by the producer of the assessments. (Findings of Fact 36.) The evaluation included information provided by the Parents. (Findings of Fact 24, 26, 28-30.) Therefore, the undersigned finds that the District's psychoeducational evaluation was appropriate.

2. Did the District offer an appropriate program to the Student for the 2024-25 school year?

The substantive issue raised by the Parents is whether the District was correct in exiting the Student from special education.3

"A child with a disability for the purposes of the IDEA [Individuals with Disabilities Education Act] is a student who has been evaluated and been determined to have one or more of 12 specified conditions and who, by reason of that condition, needs special education and related services." See 34 C.F.R. § 300.8(a)(1)." N.C. ex rel M.C. v. Bedford Cent. School Dist, 473 F. Supp. 2d 532, 542 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). The IDEA defines a "child with a disability" as "a child ... with [inter alia] ... ..., other health impairments, or specific learning disabilities; and ... who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services." C.B. on behalf of ZG., Department of Education of the City of New York, 322 F. Appx 20 (2d Cir. 2008), citing 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3)(A).

"[I]f the child's condition does adversely affect his educational performance, then the team must determine whether as a result he "needs special education. 20 U.S.C.§ 1401(3)(A)(ii)." Marshall Joint School District No. 2 vs C.D., 54 IDELR 307, 312 (7th Cir. 2010).

In this case, the intelligence testing of the Student largely showed him to be int the average range. (Findings of Fact #17-20.) Testing showed the Student to be in the high average range for reading and the average range for mathematics and written expression. (Finding of Fact #22.) Ratings on the clinical and adaptive scales completed by both the parents and a teacher found the student to be largely average and not clinically significant in any category. (Findings of Fact #25-29.) Ratings by both the parents and the teacher mostly found the Student to be "not elevated" in the executive functioning index. (Finding of Fact #30.) Observation of the Student showed his behaviors to be entirely appropriate. (Finding of Fact #15.)

The Student was performing his regular education work at grade level. (Finding of Fact #38.) The Student had mastered his goals and objectives and was progressing to new ones. (Finding of Fact #37.) The Student's performance was strong enough that he did not even require tiered intervention in general education. (Finding of Fact #36.)

Finally, it again must be observed that the Parents provided no expert testimony to demonstrate that the decision to exit the Student from special education was incorrect. The only credentialled witnesses who testified to the issue were the educators who had taught and observed the Student and they all supported the decision.

Therefore, the undersigned finds the decision to exit the Student from special education to be correct.

3. Did the District commit procedural violations amounting to a denial of FAPE for the 2024-25 school year?

The Complaint contained language that could be read to suggest that there were procedural errors in the holding of the PPT.

There was no evidence of any specific procedural violations committed by the PPT. The closest that the Parents come to the conclusion that the PPT was procedurally infirm is the suggestion that the District is guilty of "predetermining an exit and then backfilling the rationale with a single favorable narrative". However, there is no evidence that any such predetermination ever occurred; without actual evidence, such an allegation is little more than a conspiracy theory. The mere fact that the Parents disagree with the determination of the PPT does not mean that it was arrived at improperly or without consideration of all information presented.

Therefore, the undersigned finds no procedural violation in the determination to exit the Student from special education.

4. If the District has committed any violations, what remedies should be ordered?

As no violations have been found, no remedies are ordered.

Final Decision and Order:

The undersigned Hearing Officer finds that the evaluation provided by the District to be appropriate and that the District committed no violations in exiting the Student from special education.

Notes

  1. Fifth grade at the time of the evaluations in question.
  2. Previously Parkman Elementary School.
  3. The Complaint was filed by the Parents on a pro se basis and the Parents were pro se at the prehearing conference where issues were discussed. While the primary focus of the Complaint was the decision to exit the Student from special education some of the language could be read to indicate that the IEP was not altogether adequate (although the relief requested was to maintain the current IEP. After the presentation of evidence, it is clear that the adequacy of the IEP is not at issue.