Final Decision and Order Case #25-0731

April 7, 2026

Student¹ v. Greenwich Board of Education

Appearing on behalf of Student:
Attorney Jennifer Laviano
Law Office of Jennifer Laviano LLC
76 Route 37 South
Sherman, CT 06784

Appearing on behalf of the Board of Education:
Attorney Abby Wadler
Assistant Town Attorney
Greenwich Town Hall – Law Department
101 Field Point Road
Greenwich, CT 06830

Appearing before:
Janis C. Jerman
Hearing Officer

Final Decision and Order

Procedural Posture

Student’s Attorney filed a Request for Due Process Hearing pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act² (IDEA) via letter dated June 30, 2025. The Board of Education (BOE) received the Request for Hearing on June 30, 2025. The undersigned Hearing Officer was appointed to this case on July 3, 2025. The 30-day resolution period ended July 30, 2025. The original deadline to mail the final decision and order was September 13.

At the July 22, 2025 telephonic prehearing conference, Attorney Laviano appeared on behalf of Student and Attorney Wadler appeared on behalf of BOE.

The following issues are identified:

1. Did the Board of Education fail to provide Student with a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment during the 2025 extended school year and/or 2025-26 school year by:
   1. failing to offer Student an appropriate Individualized Education Program that can address Student’s therapeutic, academic, social, functional, adaptive and transition needs; and/or
   2. predetermining Student’s Individualized Education Program?
2. If the answer to Issue One is affirmative, what shall be the remedy?
3. If the answer to Issue One above is affirmative, is Private School and/or Magnet School an appropriate placement for Student?
4. If the answer to Issue Three above is affirmative, shall Student be placed at Private School with participation in the Magnet School program at public expense?

The Request for Hearing cites the Americans with Disabilities Act³ (ADA). The jurisdiction of a Hearing Officer appointed under 34 C.F.R. § 300.500 et seq. and Conn.Regs. § 10-76h-1 et seq. does not include the determination of legal claims under the ADA. Jurisdiction over ADA claims is declined.

The Request for Hearing cites Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act⁴ (Section 504). The jurisdiction of a Hearing Officer appointed under 34 C.F.R. § 300.500 et seq. and Conn.Regs. § 10-76h-1 et seq. does not include the determination of legal claims under Section 504 unless such determination is necessary to resolve the claims under IDEA. Student’s Attorney requested to brief the issue in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, 605 U.S. 335 (2025). The parties requested to hold this issue in abeyance until after a ruling on Student’s stay-put placement.

The parties disagreed as to what constitutes Student’s stay-put placement and were given leave to brief the issue. BOE’s Attorney and Student’s Attorney filed briefs on July 31 and August 11, 2025, respectively. After fully considering the parties’ positions, BOE was ordered to maintain Student’s stay-put placement at the private therapeutic school she was attending (Private School) pursuant to the April 23, 2024 Individualized Educational Program (IEP) during the pendency of this hearing unless the parties mutually agree otherwise.

On August 8, 2025 Student’s Attorney requested that the undersigned Hearing Officer recuse herself from this case because this Hearing Officer also presided over a previous case between the same parties which was resolved through a settlement agreement.⁵ The request to recuse was denied.

Student’s Parents sought an order from this Hearing Officer declaring the parties’ settlement agreement in the previous case to be unenforceable and in violation of public policy. Jurisdiction over enforceability of the settlement agreement was declined.

On August 21, 2025 Student’s Attorney requested an extension of the briefing schedule which necessitated an extension of the deadline to mail the final decision and order. After fully considering the parties’ positions, the request was granted and the deadline to mail the final decision and order extended 30 days to October 13, 2025.

On September 2, 2025 Student’s Attorney filed Parents’ Motion in Support of 504 and ADA Jurisdiction Before IDEA Hearing Officer and Request for Order to Allow Student to Attend Magnet School Pursuant to Her Rights Under the IDEA, Section 504 and the ADA. BOE’s Attorney filed a brief in opposition on September 5, 2025. After fully considering the parties’ positions the Hearing Officer denied the Motion, declining jurisdiction over Section 504 and ADA claims.

On September 17, 2025 Student’s Attorney requested an extension of the deadline to mail the final decision and order to allow the parties to work towards resolving the matter and/or to accommodate hearing dates. After fully considering the parties’ positions, the request was granted and the deadline to mail the final decision and order extended to December 1, 2025. Hearing was scheduled for November 20, 2025.

The parties submitted a joint stipulation of uncontested facts on November 18, 2025 (Exh. HO-2).⁶ At the November 20 2025 hearing the Request for Hearing was marked as exhibit HO-1; BOE’s exhibits B-1 through B-104 were admitted as full exhibits absent objection; BOE’s Attorney made an opening statement;⁷ and the following witnesses were questioned and cross-examined under oath: BOE’s House Administrator (House Administrator) and BOE’s School Psychologist (School Psychologist). Student’s Attorney deferred her opening statement until she presented Student’s case.

On the record at the November 20, 2025 hearing the parties requested an extension of the deadline to mail the final decision and order to accommodate three hearings in January 2026. The request was granted and hearings scheduled for January 14, 20, and 30, 2026.

At the January 14, 2026 hearing, BOE’s exhibit B-105 and Student’s exhibits S-1 through S-4 were admitted as full exhibits absent objection. The following witnesses were questioned and cross-examined under oath: BOE’s Special Education Teacher (SpecEd Teacher). BOE’s Speech Language Pathologist (SLP), and BOE’s Guidance Counselor (Guidance Counselor). BOE rested their case.

At the January 20, 2026 hearing, Student’s exhibits S-5 through S-15 were admitted as full exhibits absent objection and the following witness was questioned and cross-examined under oath: Student’s Mother.

At the January 30, 2026 hearing, Student’s exhibits S-16 through S-17 were admitted as full exhibits absent objection and the following witnesses were questioned and cross-examined under oath: Private School’s Head of School (PS Head of School) and Private School’s Division Leader (PS Division Leader).

Hearings concluded on January 30, 2026. On the record at the January 30 hearing, Student’s Attorney requested an extension of the deadline to mail the final decision and order to accommodate a briefing schedule. After fully considering the parties’ positions, the request was granted and the deadline to mail the final decision and order extended to April 10, 2026.

The parties timely submitted post-hearing briefs on March 16, 2026.

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).⁸

Findings of Relevant Fact

Qualifications of Witnesses

1. House Administrator holds a Bachelor of Science degree in biology and mathematics, a Masters of Education in secondary education, and a Master’s of Science in Education in education administration and supervision and has engaged in advanced studies in executive leadership. He has been an educator for more than 25 years, serving in both public and private schools as teacher and administrator. He has served as BOE’s House Administrator for five years. He is responsible for the social, emotional and academic well-being of 500 students at BOE High School. He chairs 100 Planning and Placement Team (PPT) meetings per year and works with staff to develop IEPs based on student needs and to ensure that they are implemented appropriately throughout the school year. House Administrator met Student at the May 2025 PPT. He had not previously observed, evaluated, or taught Student. He was aware that she had been hospitalized in sixth grade. (Exh. B-97; Testimony of House Administrator)
2. School Psychologist holds an Associate’s degree in liberal arts, Bachelor’s degree in psychological sciences, Master’s degree in school psychology, and a Sixth Year Certificate in school psychology. She is certified as a school psychologist by the State of Connecticut. She has worked as a school psychologist for BOE since August 2024 and completed internships and practicums in other school districts in the 2023-24 school year. School Psychologist participates as a member of PPTs, counsels students, collaborates with teachers and responds to crises. She got to know Student when she evaluated her in early 2025. (Exh. B-101; Testimony of School Psychologist)
3. SpecEd Teacher holds a Bachelor of Arts in communication, a Master of Arts in elementary education, and a Sixth-Year degree in special education. She has worked as a special education teacher at BOE High School since April 2024 and has six previous years’ experience as an elementary school teacher. She is certified to teach elementary education and special education K-12 in Connecticut. She provides specialized instruction to students, implements IEPs, evaluates students, ensures that students receive the services they need in their IEPs, and attends PPT meetings. She met Student when she evaluated her in early 2025. SpecEd Teacher first evaluated high school students in 2024. (Exh. B-100; Testimony of SpecEd Teacher)
4. SLP holds a Bachelor of Arts in speech pathology and audiology and a Master of Science in speech pathology. She is licensed as a speech language pathologist in New York and Connecticut. She has worked as a speech language pathologist in public schools in New York and Connecticut since 2006. She is in her second year working for BOE. She assesses students’ communication abilities, administers standardized and comprehensive evaluations, writes evaluation reports with clinical findings and recommendations, interventions, collaborates with school staff and families, formulates annual goals and objectives, develops lesson plans, and monitors progress. She met Student in spring 2025 when she conducted her evaluation. (Exh. B-105; Testimony of SLP)
5. Guidance Counselor holds a Bachelor of Arts in elementary and special education, a Master of Arts in school counseling, and a Sixth-Year degree. He holds Connecticut certifications in school counseling, intermediate administration and supervision (092), special education K-12, and elementary education 6-12. He worked in a variety of roles including special education teacher, coach, director of admissions and placement, and school counselor during a 19-year career with a private school prior to working for BOE. Guidance Counselor is one of three counselors assigned to one of the five “Houses” within BOE High School. In addition to the three counselors, a school psychologist and social worker are available to work and meet with students within the assigned House. He works on schedules for all students, making sure that they take all required classes and have the proper credits to graduate. Guidance Counselor supports Section 504 students, attends PPT meetings, supports the multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) team, meets with students regularly to make sure things are going well, keeps in contact with parents, and serves as liaison between the school counselors in the middle and high schools. Guidance Counselor helps adjust students’ workloads and provides problem-solving supports. He has worked with students with anxiety and peer struggles. (Exh. B-96; Testimony of Guidance Counselor)
6. PS Head of School holds a Bachelor of Science in psychology, a Master of Science in school psychology, a Sixth-Year Professional Diploma, and a Certification in Educational Leadership. He holds Connecticut school psychologist and intermediate school administrator certificates and is licensed as a marriage and family therapist. He has 37 years’ experience working in public schools in Connecticut, starting as a school psychologist then serving as coordinator of pupil personnel services and then director of special education. He began working at Private School as director of education and has been head of school for five years. (Exh. S-3; Testimony of PS Head of School)
7. PS Division Leader holds a Bachelor of Arts in communication disorders and sciences and a Master of Science in speech language pathology. She is licensed as a speech language pathologist in Connecticut and New York. She began working for Private School as a speech language pathologist. She has served as high school division leader for five years. In that capacity she oversees academic and social emotional programming for high school students and ensures compliance with IEPs. (Exh. S-4; Testimony of PS Division Leader)

    

   Background

8. Early in her school career, Student had difficulty completing work, became frustrated, and experienced school refusal. She was evaluated and found eligible for special education services. She struggled with transition to a new school and later struggled with remote learning during the COVID pandemic. Pandemic restrictions when she returned to in-person learning made it challenging for Student. Student struggled with the transitions and did not have self-advocacy skills. Student experienced severe depression and was hospitalized three times during sixth grade. (Testimony of Student’s Mother)
9. BOE agreed to change Student’s placement to Private School, a state-approved special education school. (Exh. HO-2; Testimony of Student’s Mother)
10. Private School focuses on students in grades two through twelve with multiple learning difficulties and disabilities, including students who have social emotional concerns that arise out of academic issues. The complexity of students at Private School is pretty intense. There are 75 students at Private School where the maximum class size is four students. (Testimony of PS Head of School)
11. Prior to entering Private School in 2021, Student was diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Social Anxiety Disorder, ADHD, and Adjustment Disorder with mixed mood and conduct. (Exh. HO-2)
12. Student began attending Private School for extended school year (ESY) 2021. (Exh. HO-2)
13. When she first started at Private School, Student was anxious, insecure, unsure of herself and struggling with reading. Reading was her most significant challenge and she was placed in Private School’s most intensive reading program. She also had challenges with executive functioning and with social-emotional and mental health issues that came out of her learning challenges. (Testimony of PS Head of School)
14. Student was unable to independently complete reading, writing, and math assignments and unable to participate in the general education setting without one-to-one support. (Exh. B-55, B-58)
15. Student is currently identified as a special education student under the eligibility category of Emotional Disability. (Exh. HO-2)
16. Magnet School is a part-time, publicly funded, inter-district magnet school for the arts. (Exh. HO-2)
17. There are 200 students in the Magnet School arts program which provides students an opportunity to participate in a larger peer cohort in electives that are not available at their placement school. It is more like a typical high school arts program. The Magnet School program is in session Monday through Thursday afternoons. (Exh. P-16; Testimony of PS Division Leader)
18. BOE High School has approximately 2,600 students who are assigned to one of five “Houses” of 500-550 students each. Each House has an assigned administrator who is responsible for the social, emotional, and academic well-being of the students in their House. House Administrator is the head of one of those five Houses. (Testimony of House Administrator)

     

    2021-22 School Year – 7^th Grade

19. Student attended Private School through her IEP placement. Her IEP included goals addressing reading, writing, math, and social/behavioral skills. The IEP called for 31.3 hours of academic/behavior/social skills/executive functioning instruction in a group setting implemented by a special education teacher and one weekly 45-minute counseling session. This provided Student with no school time spent with children who do not have a disability. The IEP also identified accommodations and modifications to enable Student to make progress. (Exh. B-53, B-55)
20. Student experienced some school refusal in the beginning of her placement at Private School. Ultimately, Private School staff made Student feel safe. They set expectations to help hold her accountable without high pressure. (Testimony of Student’s Mother)
21. September 2021 testing revealed that Student’s reading performance was equivalent to a fourth grade to early fifth grade level and she scored in the 25^th percentile in math compared to same-age peers nationwide. (Exh. B-46)
22. Student’s June 2022 progress report indicates that she mastered one of her two reading goals and made satisfactory progress on the second reading goal; mastered one of her two writing goals and made satisfactory progress on the second goal; made satisfactory progress on her two math goals; and made satisfactory progress on her social/emotional/behavioral goal. (Exh. B-52)

     

    2022-23 School Year – 8^th Grade

23. Student continued to attend Private School during the 2022-23 school year with an IEP containing goals for reading, writing, math, and functional skills and identified accommodations and modifications to enable Student to make progress. Her IEP provided Student with no school time spent with children who do not have a disability. (Exh. B-41, B-46, B-47)
24. Private School conducted a psychoeducational evaluation of Student in September 2022. Student’s cognitive functioning fell in the average and high average ranges. Academic functions varied from extremely low to high average across subtests. Student obtained elevated scores for anxiety, depression, and attention problems on rating scales. The evaluator, who had not previously worked with Student, noted that Student quickly established rapport, was interested in doing well, put forth her best effort even when lacking confidence in her abilities, and demonstrated high tolerance for frustration. (Exh. B-51)
25. Private School conducted a speech and language evaluation of Student in September 2022. Student scored average or above average on all but one subtest in which she scored below average. The evaluator recommended learning accommodations and strategies for Student. (Exh. B-50)
26. On a September 2022 assessment, Student scored at an independent fifth grade and instructional sixth grade level for reading. She showed improvement in writing. Her difficulty sustaining attention, regulation, and self-confidence impacted her ability to complete math skills without specialized instruction and accommodations. During testing, Student was engaged and cooperative, demonstrated a high tolerance for frustration and a degree of perseverance even when unconfident about her ability. (Exh. B-41)
27. In October 2022, Student was noted as being unable to problem-solve during challenging situations, impacting her ability to independently function in a general education setting. At times, she engaged in negative self-talk. Student was described as being able to make friends easily and demonstrating compassion for others. Student’s struggle to manage anxiety impacted her school attendance and punctuality. (Exh. B-41, B-46)
28. Student began the post-secondary education or training transition planning process and started a school newspaper. (Exh. B-39, B-41)
29. By the end of the 2022-23 school year, Student was more consistently attending school; improved her writing; jumped from a sixth grade instructional reading level to an upper middle school (seventh/eight grade) level; improved her reading score from 23^rd percentile to 54^th percentile, which was higher than Private School’s English teacher and reading specialist anticipated; and scored in the 36^th percentile on a sixth grade level math assessment. Student’s difficulty sustaining attention, regulation, and self-confidence continued to impact her ability to complete math skills without specialized instruction and accommodations. (Exh. B-33)
30. At the June 15, 2023 PPT meeting, the PPT noted that Student has strong receptive and expressive language, solid writing skills, fairly strong reading skills and struggles with decoding, word attack, math computation and math fluency. The PPT also noted that Student’s social and emotional struggles can impact her daily routine and overall access to her education. (Exh. B-28)
31. Student’s June 2023 progress report indicates that Student made satisfactory progress on two reading goals and limited progress on a third reading goal; mastered two writing goals;mastered two math goals, made satisfactory progress on one math goal, and limited progress on one math goal; made satisfactory progress on her employment transition goal; made satisfactory progress on her postsecondary education and training goal; mastered one functional skills goal and made limited progress on a second. The progress notes indicate that Student is able to identify her levels of anxiety with no more than one prompt and discuss why she is feeling that level of anxiety; has increased her positive self-talk; can identify triggers and create and implement a plan to increase attendance and decrease anxiety. (Exh. B-27)

     

    2023-24 School Year – 9^th Grade

32. Student continued to attend Private School during the 2023-24 school year. Her IEP included individual structured literacy two times per week for 45 minutes; small group academic skills for 29 hours per week; transition services one time per week for 45 minutes (2:1 instruction); individual counseling with school counselor one time per week for 45 minutes; indirect speech language services one time per month; and supplementary aids and services. The IEP includes reading, writing, math, social/emotional, and transition goals. (Exh. B-3, B-9, B-17, B-31, B-33)
33. Student and her mother began to express interest in Student having opportunities to interact with nondisabled peers and in performing arts, which is an area in which she has talents. Student participates in an acapella group that travels out of state each year to perform. (Testimony of Student’s Mother, PS Head of School, PS Division Leader)
34. At the September 12, 2023 PPT meeting, Student’s Mother and Student indicated that Student was excited to start school and would like to participate in clubs at BOE High School. Student’s Mother also indicated that Student is starting to think about the next year and is exploring a technical school and the possibility of eventually transitioning to BOE High School next year. (Exh. B-18; Testimony of Student’s Mother)
35. On a September 2023 assessment, Student was able to read at an independent upper middle school level and a high school frustration level. Her scaled score of 259 for reading comprehension put her in the 66^th percentile; her subtest scores ranged from the 40^th to 79^th percentile. Student made progress yet continued to struggle in math. (Exh. B-18)
36. Student built rapport with Private School’s clinician, seemed motivated and goal-oriented to improve her social and emotional functioning, has been able to navigate complex social situations with maturity and respect, and has a high awareness of her strengths and areas of improvement. Student improved her ability to manage anxiety and was recommended to continue to utilize strategies to regulate her emotions and feel more confident. (Exh. B-18)
37. Starting in autumn 2023, Student began participating in a club at BOE High School, providing her 45 minutes per week with children who do not have a disability. (Exh. B-5, B-18, S-10)
38. BOE’s Administrator recommended Magnet School’s arts program for Student. Student and her mother went to an open house at Magnet School. (Exh. S-11; Testimony of Student’s Mother)
39. In spring 2024, Student applied and auditioned for a position at Magnet School. On March 21, 2024 she was notified that she will be invited to attend Magnet School, which meets Monday through Thursday afternoons, beginning with the 2024-25 school year. Student was selected to attend Magnet School over 100 other students who were waitlisted. Magnet School is a general education arts program that does not have special education or related service staff. Students in the program are expected to be independent. Student’s Mother requested that a PPT meeting be scheduled to plan for Student’s 2024-25 program. (Exh. S-11, S-13, S-14, B-11)
40. Student is a great advocate for herself and advocated for her participation in the Magnet School arts program. (Testimony of PS Head of School)
41. The PPT met on April 23, 2024, for the purpose of reviewing and revising Student’s IEP. Student’s Mother attended the meeting with their special education non-attorney Advocate along with BOE’s school team, Private School team, and Magnet School Director. Private School staff reported that Student is making tremendous progress on her goals and objectives at Private School and they believe it remains an appropriate placement for Student. Student’s Mother reported that Student was accepted into Magnet School to help supplement her current plan. Private School team reported that they think Student can be successful at Magnet School and can develop a hybrid schedule that allows Student to take her academic courses at Private School in the morning and attend Magnet School in the afternoon. BOE’s Program Administrator indicated that, based on the progress Student is making at Private School and her ability to navigate the Magnet School application process independently, Private School may no longer be the least restrictive environment (LRE) and proposed BOE’s Alternative Program to be more appropriate. Student’s Mother preferred that Student remain at Private School but was willing to tour the Alternative Program. The PPT noted they would reconvene after the tour to discuss changes to the IEP. (Exh. HO-2, B-11)
42. BOE’s Alternative Program is a small intimate community of 40-45 students that offers flexibility for student needs. The program provides social emotional supports with full-time social worker and school counselor. (Testimony of House Administrator)
43. According to the April 25, 2024 Prior Written Notice (PWN) the only action taken at the PPT meeting was to add a new math goal and objective to take effect May 9, 2024, as all math goals had been mastered. (Exh. HO-2, B-13)
44. Student and Student’s Mother toured the Alternative Program and Student participated in a shadow day. (Exh. HO-2, B-5; Testimony of Student’s Mother)
45. Student and Student’s Mother did not feel that Alternative Program was appropriate for Student. Student advocated for herself. (Testimony of Student’s Mother)
46. Student’s June 2024 progress report indicates that she mastered all objectives in her eight math goals; mastered one objective and made satisfactory progress on four objectives in one reading goal and mastered three objectives and made satisfactory progress on three objectives in her second reading goal; mastered all three objectives in one writing goal and mastered three objectives and made satisfactory progress on one objective in her second writing goal; mastered three of four objectives in a postsecondary education or training goal (the fourth objective not introduced due to time constraints) and made satisfactory progress on one of two objectives (the second objective not introduced due to time constraints) in another postsecondary education or training goal; mastered three objectives and made satisfactory progress on one objective in an employment goal; mastered one of two objectives (the second objective yet to be introduced) in an independent living goal; and made satisfactory progress in all four objectives in social/emotional goal. (Exh. B-2, B-7)
47. Student had a great ninth grade year at Private School. She worked hard and was motivated and did not have school refusal issues. Student and her mother continued to explore options to provide Student with electives. (Testimony of Student’s Mother)

     

    2024-25 School Year – 10^th Grade

48. The PPT met on June 3, 2024 to review or revise Student’s IEP and engage in transition planning. Student, Student’s Mother, Student’s then-Attorney, and Private School staff attended the PPT meeting along with required BOE representatives. (Exh. B-5)
49. At the meeting, the PPT discussed that Student made progress at Private School. Private School team indicated that they believe Student would benefit from remaining at Private School and accessing the Magnet School program. Student and her mother requested that Student remain at Private School for the 2024-25 school year while attending Magnet School. BOE’s PPT administrator stated that it is not the LRE for Student and that the Alternative Program while accessing the Magnet School is the LRE. The PPT agreed that Student remains eligible for ESY and her IEP will include BOE’s ESY program for summer 2024. Student, Student’s Mother, and Private School team disagreed with the recommendation. (Exh. HO-2, B-4, B-5, B-6)
50. Student’s Mother requested that Student remain at Private School with participation in the Magnet School program for the 2024-25 school year. BOE denied the request. (Exh. B-4, B-5)
51. June 6, 2024 PWN indicates Student’s IEP was revised to change Student’s placement from Private School to BOE’s Alternative Program with participation in the Magnet School program. The revised IEP was to take effect on June 20, 2024. (Exh. HO-2, B-4)
52. Student’s Mother filed for a Due Process Hearing on June 14, 2024, invoking Student’s stay-put rights. On June 25, 2024, a stay-put order was issued maintaining Student’s educational placement at Private School, not the hybrid Private School/Magnet School program. (Exh. HO-2)
53. Student was excited to attend Magnet School. Student’s Mother drove Student from Private School to Magnet School so that she could participate in the hybrid program. (Testimony of Student’s Mother)
54. The PPT met on September 10, 2024 for the purpose of conducting an annual review and discussing transition planning. Student reported that she made good growth while attending Private School and is enjoying the Magnet School program. Student’s Mother indicated that Student is enjoying the Magnet School program, advocating for herself, speaking up, and dealing with certain social situations and relationship expectations. BOE’s Attorney stated that BOE was not aware or informed that Student was attending the Magnet School program. It was reported that Student receives her core academic classes and related services at Private School from 8:00am to 12:30 pm then four days per week attends Magnet School for the afternoon. Private School team shared Student’s progress and proposed new IEP goals. BOE continued to recommend the Alternative Program and believed they could implement Student’s IEP. BOE’s team indicated that Student could attend Magnet School if she attends BOE’s Alternative Program. Student’s Mother disagreed with BOE’s recommendation. Student remained at Private School through stay-put. (Exh. HO-2, B-94)
55. At the September 2024 PPT meeting, Private School staff indicated that Student did a good job mastering her math goals and objectives; made good progress with her foundation, decoding and encoding skills; needs support for multiple words, more complex, and linguistic patterns; mastered her counseling goals; has grown significantly in the last year and become a role model in the school community; and has grown outside of school as evidenced by auditioning and being accepted to Magnet School and performing in a singing group at an out of state event. Private School’s counselor indicated that Student mastered all counseling goals except related to independent living skills because they ran out of time and Student changed counselors. (Exh. B-94)
56. At the September 2024 PPT meeting, BOE stated that they can implement Student’s IEP with access to counseling and reading supports, academic and transition goals, and accommodations for scheduling to allow Student to also participate in the Magnet School program. (Exh. B-94)
57. In October 2024, BOE and Student’s Mother entered into a Settlement Agreement which placed Student at Private School through June 30, 2025 with Student attending Magnet School for afternoon sessions. (Exh. HO-2, B-90, B-91)
58. Student’s Mother reached out to BOE High School principal to learn about programming options to see if they could create an appropriate program for Student for the following year as agreed in the settlement agreement. Student, Student’s Mother and Private School’s social worker toured BOE High School. BOE High School principal described the Houses within the school as being mini schools with the larger school. He described the variety of electives available and gave them a “red carpet” tour and answered all their questions. Student’s Mother was concerned about whether the classes of 20-ish students would be too large for Student and whether she would be able to focus. The principal recommended that Student’s Mother speak with Guidance Counselor to talk about a schedule that can accommodate Student’s participation in the Magnet School program if she attends BOE High School. (Testimony of Student’s Mother)
59. Student liked the tour and was familiar with the school from attending crochet club. She was concerned about being able to stay focused and keep up with the work and about being able to graduate on time. (Testimony of Student’s Mother)
60. On January 31, 2025, HS Special Ed Coordinator emailed Student’s Mother to begin planning Student’s triennial evaluation. He asked for a signed release of information, access to Student’s report cards and academic records, and consent for BOE to conduct evaluations. He copied a BOE High School House administrator and Alternative Program administrator on the email. Student’s Mother responded with questions and requested to continue with a different High School House and administrator to consider programming options. BOE granted that request. (Exh. S-1; Testimony of Student’s Mother)
61. In February 2025, Guidance Counselor spoke with Student’s Mother to discuss the BOE High School program, how the 8-day class cycle works, the kinds of classes offered, what a typical day looks like, credit requirements, and scheduling to accommodate Student’s attendance at Magnet School. Student’s Mother provided Guidance Counselor with Student’s Private School report cards. If Student attends BOE High School, it will be Guidance Counselor’s job to make sure that all her core classes and special education services fit into her schedule in the mornings so she can attend Magnet School in the afternoons for her electives. Guidance Counselor said that he can create a schedule to work out what each student needs since not every student has the same profile. (Testimony of Guidance Counselor, Student’s Mother)
62. In March 2025, School Psychologist conducted Student’s triennial psychoeducational evaluation. The evaluation, conducted at Private School, consisted of administration of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children 5^th Edition (WISC-V), Behavior Assessment System for Children 3^rd Edition (BASC-3) (teacher, parent, and student forms), Adaptive Behavior Assessment System 3^rd Edition (ABAS-3) (teacher and parent forms), Behavior Rating Scale of Executive Functioning 2^nd Edition (BRIEF-2) (teacher, parent, and student forms) and file review, student interview, and classroom and assessment observations. During the class observation, the other student in the classroom was having a hard time and required teacher intervention. Student remained focused and attentive to her work throughout class. Student’s teacher indicated that Student has improved a lot, is generally focused, self-sufficient during lessons, and able to manage tasks independently. (Exh. B-85; Testimony of School Psychologist)
63. During Student’s interview, she shared with School Psychologist that she used to be depressed; middle school was really hard for her; she is doing much better; she likes Private School where she has grown a lot; she likes the Magnet School program; music is a big part of her life; she has friends at Private School, BOE High School, and her acapella group; she isn’t as anxious but was feeling a little anxious about going to BOE High School and being able to attend Magnet School. (Exh. B-85; Testimony of School Psychologist)
64. Student’s WISC-V test results indicate that she is functioning in the high average range of intelligence and is in the 75^th percentile when compared to her same-age peers. Her working memory was low average and a relative weakness. On the BASC-3 rating scales, Student self-reported as at risk for anxiety and attention problems; her teacher rated her average on those two areas as well as all other areas. There were some discrepancies between home and school ratings. On the BRIEF-2, Student reported that task completion is hard for her. (Exh. B-85; Testimony of School Psychologist)
65. Based on the results of the evaluation, School Psychologist made recommendations that she thought were important to address Student’s areas of need. (Exh. B-95; Testimony of School Psychologist)
66. In March 2025, SLP conducted a speech and language evaluation of Student. The evaluation, which was conducted at Private School, consisted of administration of the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals 5^th Edition (CELF-5), CELF-5 Metalinguistics (CELF-5 Meta), and Test of Auditory Processing Skills 4^th Edition (TAPS-4) and file review, Student interview, and clinical and classroom observations. Student’s overall composite scores were in the average range on the CELF-5 and above average on the CELF-5 Meta. Her scores on the TAPS-4 were low average to average. SLP opined that Student does not need direct speech language therapy and recommended accommodations to be included in her IEP. (Exh. B-84; Testimony of SLP)
67. In March 2025, SpecEd Teacher conducted an evaluation of Student at Private School. SpecEd Teacher administered the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test 4^th Edition (WIAT-4) and observed Student in social studies class at Private School. Student scored average, high average, or very high in all areas except timed math fluency subtests. She demonstrated strong reading skills, including decoding, inferential comprehension, sentence composition, essay composition, oral language, and phonological and decoding skills. Math fluency and timed math fluency were her weak areas. SpecEd Teacher recommended IEP accommodations to help Student enhance her performance. (Exh. B-83; Testimony of SpecEd Teacher)
68. In March and April 2025, BOE’s Transition Counselor conducted a Transition Assessment consisting of administration of the Transition Planning Inventory 3 (TPI-3) with rating forms completed by Student, Student’s Mother, and Private School staff and an interview of Student. (Exh. B-102, B-104)
69. Student blossomed socially and emotionally during tenth grade. She was getting good grades and doing music. Student received support from Private School and Magnet School. Student took advantage of Magnet School principal’s open-door policy. (Testimony of Student’s Mother)
70. In preparation for a PPT meeting to plan for the 2025-26 school year, House Administrator reviewed Student’s IEPs from sixth grade to date and documents shared by Private School. Based on that review, House Administrator understood Student had previously struggled to attend middle school and has since made tremendous progress on her goals and objectives and successfully navigated the application and audition process to be accepted at Magnet School. House Administrator understood that Student’s Mother and BOE had previously considered options other than Private School for Student. House Administrator co-facilitated the May 5, 2025 PPT meeting with BOE’s then-Administrator. (Testimony of House Administrator)
71. The PPT met on May 5, 2025 to review Student’s progress and plan her transition. Student’s Mother attended with their non-attorney Advocate. The PPT reviewed the following evaluations which were conducted by BOE: educational, psychological, speech and language, and transitional. Observations were conducted in conjunction with these evaluations. Student successfully receives core classes, special education services, counseling, decoding, and transition services at Private School. Math Teacher reported a decrease in Student’s math skills from MAP testing (September: 64%, January: 36%) and noted Student benefits from alternative explanations and frequent reviews. Social Worker praised Student’s self-advocacy but mentioned she needs more support managing stress. The team clarified issues about transportation to Magnet School were part of a settlement agreement. The team discussed Student’s emotional disability, noting improvements at Private Schol but concerns about potential regression. They decided she still requires special education under the label of Emotional Disability, with discussions on LD and OHI. The team reviewed Student’s IEP and proposed specific services at BOE High School. Student expressed her desire to stay at Private School due to her progress. The family’s Advocate disputed the settlement agreement’s enforceability and requested Private School’s service recommendations, which BOE disagreed with. The team noted Student does not require special transportation or assistive technology. ESY services were recommended. The family requested continued placement at Private School and specific ESY services, which BOE denied. The PPT recommended placement at BOE High School in conjunction with the Magnet School program. BOE’s representative explained that the team believes BOE High School can provide the Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE). (Exh. HO-2, B-77, B-104)
72. Seventeen individuals attended the two-hour PPT meeting: Student, Student’s Mother, Student’s Advocate, Private School staff (PS Head of School, PS Division Leader, dean of academics, math teacher, decoding teacher, social worker, and college/career counselor) and BOE staff (House Administrator, School Psychologist, Guidance Counselor, SpecEd Teacher, Transition Counselor, Program Coordinator). (Exh. B-7, B-104)
73. Student was a good contributor to the PPT meeting. She spoke about her participation in the Magnet School program, read her student statement, and advocated for her preferred placement which was Private School since she was comfortable there. Student expressed concern about whether she could still attend Magnet School and could graduate on time if she transitioned to BOE High School. (Exh. B-104; Testimony of House Administrator, Guidance Counselor, Student’s Mother)
74. The PPT recommended reading, writing, math, and counseling goals and services and accommodations based on input from Private School staff, the evaluations, and Student’s progress. The PPT increased the frequency of counseling services based on input from Private School. The PPT determined Student is eligible for ESY 2025. The PPT recommended that Student attend BOE High School in the mornings and Magnet School in the afternoons as her LRE. House Administrator thought it was a foregone conclusion that Student would attend Magnet School in the afternoons regardless of where she attended school in the morning. House Administrator does not know any reason that Student could not graduate on time if she attends a hybrid program at BOE High School and Magnet School. BOE staff members of the PPT believe the proposed program was appropriate for Student. (Exh. B-104; Testimony of House Administrator, SLP, School Psychologist, SpecEd Teacher)
75. Private School staff expressed that Student has a decoding deficit. Although Student’s evaluation did not showcase a decoding deficit, the PPT took their comments into consideration and included two related goals in the IEP. At BOE High School, decoding class is ten students spread over four sections so that there are 2-3 students in each section.Private School staff wrote the three goals included in the IEP. (Exh. B-77; Testimony of SpecEd Teacher)
76. Private School staff disagreed with the recommendation to place Student at BOE High School. They believe that putting her in an unfamiliar and larger environment will not set her up for success and that BOE High School cannot provide the kind of integrated programming and intense reading support that Private School provides. (Testimony of PS Head of School, PS Division Leader)
77. BOE issued PWN which states the PPT proposes to continue Student’s classification as Emotional Disability and proposed placement at BOE High School in conjunction with the Magnet School program. BOE is refusing continued placement at Private School including for ESY 2025 and 2025-26 school year, Encoding two times for 45 minutes each per week (1:1), Reading Comprehension and Writing two times per day for 45 minutes (4:1); and transportation from Private School to Magnet School. (Exh. HO-2)

     

    2025-26 School Year – 11^th grade

78. Student’s current placement is in eleventh grade at Private School where she receives specialized education programming to support her academic and emotional needs. (Exh. HO-2)⁹
79. Student’s Mother drove Student from Private School to Magnet School so that she could participate in the hybrid program. (Testimony of Student’s Mother)
80. In January 2026, on her own initiative, Student began taking a college course two evenings a week. Student’s Mother is concerned about it; PS Division Leader is optimistic about Student’s ability to attend Private School in the morning, Magnet School in the afternoon, and college in the evening. Part of the process for Student is to learn how to get supports in that environment. (Exh. S-5; Testimony of Student’s Mother, PS Division Leader)
81. Student is on track to complete her high school education at the end of the 2026-27 school year. (Exh. HO-2)
82. BOE received a bill from Magnet School for their services, which BOE has not paid. (Exh. HO-2)

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 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.¹⁰
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.¹¹
3. 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 child’s progress toward meeting the annual goals will be measured and when periodic reports on the progress the child is making toward meeting the annual goals will be provided; a statement of the special education and related services and supplementary 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 on State and 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.¹²
4. 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 includes speech-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 evaluation purposes. Related services also include school health services and school nurse services, social work services in schools, and parent counseling and training.¹³
5. The school district must ensure that a continuum of alternative placements is available to meet the needs of children with disabilities for special education and related services. This continuum may include instruction in regular classes, special classes, special schools, home instruction, and instruction in hospitals and institutions; and must make provision for supplementary services to be provided in conjunction with regular class placement.¹⁴
6. 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.¹⁵
7. 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.¹⁶
8. School districts can engage in preparatory activities to develop a proposal or response to a parent proposal that will be discussed at a later meeting. Predetermination occurs when a school district decides on a student's IEP placement and services prior to the PPT meeting and without meaningful parent input.¹⁷
9. Changes to an IEP may be made at a PPT meeting or by agreement of the parents and school district.¹⁸
10. 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 child’s circumstances.¹⁹
11. 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.”²⁰
12. 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 LRE.²¹
13. The school district must ensure that children with disabilities are educated with children who are nondisabled to the maximum extent appropriate and that special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.²²
14. An appropriate public education under IDEA is one that is “likely to produce progress, not regression.” 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.²³
15. The proposed program or placement must be reviewed in light of the information available to the PPT at the time the IEP was developed.²⁴
16. BOE has the burden of proving the appropriateness of a student’s program or placement by a preponderance of the evidence.²⁵

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 even if not specifically cited below.

BOE argues that Student made tremendous progress at Private School where she was placed through her IEP; evaluations show Student to be average to above average in almost every area including psychological, speech language, education, and transition; the proposed IEP for ESY 2025 and 2025-26 school year was developed with input from Private School staff; the proposed IEP provides for specialized instruction in reading, math, and social emotional supports; Student auditioned for and was accepted into the Magnet School general education program with emphasis on music and arts; given Student’s success in academic and social emotional goals over the last two years and her ability to navigate and participate in the Magnet School program, the PPT has been working toward returning Student to BOE’s schools for morning classes with participation in the Magnet School program four afternoons a week with BOE-provided transportation; BOE is able to provide Student FAPE and can implement her IEP to meet her present needs; the proposed program is the LRE for Student at this time; Private School was Student’s stay-put placement for ESY 2025 and the 2025-26 school year pending this decision; and Student’s Mother unilaterally removed Student from Private School four afternoons per week to attend Magnet School. BOE asks that the Request for Hearing be dismissed.

On behalf of Student, Student’s Attorney argues that Student thrived at Private School; Magnet School provided her exposure to electives with non-disabled peers to allow her to grow without sacrificing the extensive supports provided in the therapeutic milieu at Private School; Student felt anxiety about attending a larger school and her ability to attend Magnet School and graduate on time; Student was nervous about interacting with peers at BOE High School and having to make new friends; BOE staff have limited personal knowledge of and experience with Student; the IEP is not appropriate and will likely result in regression; and BOE is incapable of implementing the proposed IEP.

Student’s Attorney argues that BOE’s proposed IEP failed to address Student’s reading needs, failed to offer individualized and intensive therapeutic or mental health services, failed to adequately consider individualized and appropriate transition programming, failed to offer Student an ESY program for 2025, failed to plan for her transition from a small therapeutic school to the larger environment at BOE High School, and does not provide for Student to be transported to and to attend Magnet School.

Student asks that the Hearing Officer find that BOE did not offer Student FAPE for ESY 2025 and/or 2025-26 school year and that Private School and Magnet School are appropriate and order placement at Private School and Magnet School at public expense.

The first inquiry into whether FAPE has been provided is whether IDEA’s procedural requirements have been met. Student’s Request for Hearing alleges that BOE predetermined Student’s ESY 2025 and 2025-26 school year programs in the October 2024 settlement agreement without knowing what evaluation results would reveal and with no consideration given.

Student and her mother began to explore opportunities for Student to engage with non-disabled peers in the school setting. In spring 2024, BOE began to question whether Private School continues to constitute LRE for Student when she showed significant progress and was able to successfully interview, audition, and be accepted at Magnet School, a general education program. BOE proposed placement at BOE’s smaller Alternative Program - which Student and her mother toured and felt was not a good fit - in conjunction with the Magnet School program. The parties continued to discuss alternatives that constitute LRE and allow Student to participate in the Magnet School program where she has been successful in navigating the general education program.

In October 2024, the parties entered into a settlement agreement which states that the PPT will recommend placement at BOE High School for the 2025-26 school year with participation in the Magnet School program with transportation. The agreement did not require either party to waive their right to challenge the recommended placement.²⁶

BOE conducted educational, psychoeducational, speech language and transition evaluations of Student in spring 2025 prior to the PPT meeting to plan Student’s ESY 2025 and 2025-26 school year programs. BOE staff reviewed the evaluations with Student’s Mother, received information from Private School, and reviewed Student’s progress in preparation for the PPT meeting.

BOE’s Program Coordinator who facilitated the May 2025 PPT meeting appeared to come into the meeting with the mindset that the PPT was recommending placement at BOE High School consistent with the settlement agreement. (Exh. B-104) At the meeting, which Student, Student’s Mother, Student’s Advocate, and multiple Private School staff attended, the PPT reviewed the recently completed evaluations and Private School’s progress reports, detailed explanations of Student’s program and services, and recommendations. BOE staff asked questions of Private School staff about Student’s program and needs. Student’s Advocate was a very engaged participant, asking questions, requesting specific services, and directing the process for capturing their recommendation for purposes of PWN. Student actively participated in the meeting and read her written statement. The PPT made changes to the initial proposal based on Private School staff recommendations.

Student’s post-hearing brief argues that an example of predetermination is the fact that BOE recommended Alternative Program for the 2024-25 school year but did not again consider it for the 2025-26 school year. There is credible uncontroverted evidence in the record that prior to June 2024 Student and her mother already determined that Alternative Program was not appropriate for Student, rejected such placement, and then filed for a Due Process hearing invoking stay-put at Private School. BOE’s decision to not continue to propose Alternative Program demonstrates their willingness to listen to and consider the family’s opinion and does not support a finding of predetermination.

School districts can engage in preparatory activities to develop a proposal that will be discussed at a later PPT meeting. Predetermination occurs when a district makes educational decisions prior to a PPT meeting and is unwilling to consider other options, thus depriving the parent’s right to fully participate as an equal member of the PPT. The difference between preparation and predetermination is BOE’s willingness to be open-minded and to consider parent input and concerns.

The credible evidence in the record supports a finding that Student, Student’s Mother, Student’s Advocate, and Private School staff were given the opportunity to, and did, actively participate in the PPT meeting to plan for and develop Student’s IEP; BOE school-based members of the PPT listened to and considered their opinions and requests; BOE made modifications to its proposal based on such input; and BOE staff felt that the resulting IEP will provide Student FAPE in the LRE.

BOE has met its burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence that Student’s May 5, 2025 IEP was not predetermined.

Student argues that BOE failed to offer Student an ESY program for 2025, which raises claims of both procedural and substantive IDEA compliance.

The parties’ Stipulated Facts states: “ESY services were recommended.” At the PPT meeting, House Administrator initiated the ESY discussion by stating that, based on what he heard during the PPT meeting, there is a concern about Student recouping skills over breaks and suggested that Student will need counseling during ESY. BOE recommended ESY three hours per day for four days per week to cover reading, writing, math, and executive functioning skills. When Student’s Advocate questioned how the three hours break down and what is included, House Administrator commented that they were offering a bank of hours, that it is different for each student, and that was the extent of his knowledge, and he deferred to Program Coordinator who was facilitating the meeting. The Program Coordinator indicated that it is the general program and that they are recommending the “full program” and that he will have to get back to Student’s Advocate on the specific hours and what is included.

The IEP calls for 11 hours per week of academic skills in small group implemented by a special education teacher and two individual 30-minute counseling sessions per week with a school psychologist. The IEP indicates that BOE’s ESY runs from July 1 to August 7. Student’s Mother testified that BOE did not provide her any information about ESY – where it takes place, class size, who is the teacher – and that Student did not attend ESY anywhere in 2025.

Student’s Mother filed her Request for Hearing on June 30, 2025 invoking stay-put.²⁷ The Request for Hearing alleges that “[as of June 30, 2025, BOE] has not contacted [Private School] to arrange ESY for [Student] or to plan for her continuation, despite knowing that it is [Student’s] stay put placement.” BOE’s post-hearing brief states “However, Student did not attend ESY as the Parent claimed that she was waiting for [BOE] to contact her with instructions.”

In discussing Student’s 2025-26 school year program, the PPT identified specific needs, particularly around reading and counseling, and discussed what those classes and services will look like for Student. There is no evidence that a similar discussion occurred to define the proposed ESY program; that BOE staff understood what would be included in the program; that BOE followed up with Student’s Advocate or Student’s Mother about what the program will include; or that BOE coordinated for Student to attend ESY 2025. According to PWN, the proposed IEP was scheduled to take effect on July 1 (the first day of BOE’s ESY program).

BOE’s lack of knowledge about the ESY program and failure to adequately communicate with Student’s Mother about the scope of the proposed ESY program impeded her opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of FAPE. BOE’s failure to coordinate and plan for Student’s participation in ESY 2025 caused a deprivation of educational benefit. BOE did not meet its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it offered Student FAPE for ESY 2025.

There is limited evidence in the record as to the impact lack of ESY 2025 programming had on Student. Student’s Mother testified that “nothing ever happened with summer school…we started to see a decline…she was so stressed out over the summer, not knowing…” At the PPT meeting, Private School’s Decoding Teacher stated that Student experiences regression over breaks. As there are no other prospective orders in this case that will subsume a remedy for this violation, Student is entitled to compensatory services to support Student’s academic and social emotional needs to remediate BOE’s failure to provide Student FAPE during ESY 2025.

Pursuant to Student’s stay-put placement, she should have received ESY 2025 services at Private School. At the May 2025 PPT meeting, PS Division Leader indicated that Private School’s ESY program runs from 9:00am to 2:45pm and that students receive classes and services at the same frequency as during the school year with shorter sessions. Student’s IEP for ESY 2024 at Private School reflects 23.5 hours of services per week. To remedy the violation, BOE shall place Student at Private School at public expense from the date of this order to the end of Private School’s 2025-26 school year.

The second inquiry into whether FAPE has been provided is whether the IEP is reasonably calculated to enable Student to receive educational benefits.

While acknowledging in the post-hearing brief that the PPT meeting included “EXTENSIVE” discussions about reading support and that BOE included reading goals and instruction at Private School’s urging, Student’s Attorney argues that the proposed IEP failed to address Student’s reading needs. She cites as an example that the IEP (page 23) identifies “Decoding/Encoding Class” whereas the Present Levels of Academic Achievement section under Reading only identifies a concern about making connections between the theme of the text and character dynamics.

At the PPT meeting, Private School’s Decoding Teacher stated that Student’s IEP should focus more on encoding than decoding skills and recommended areas within encoding that are appropriate for development. Based on Private School’s recommendations, through her Advocate, Student’s Mother requested “Encoding 2 x 45 minutes per week (1:1). The IEP recommendations state that BOE proposed “Reading (Encoding) 3x in 8-day cycle, 55 minutes small group setting” which is consistent with the issued PWN.

In addition to the concerns under Reading Goals, additional concerns are identified under Academic Goals that coincide with the services identified in the IEP. SpecEd Teacher testified that although Student’s March 2025 evaluation did not showcase a reading deficit, the PPT added two decoding goals as recommended by Private School’s Decoding Teacher. There were no stated objections to the reading goals at the PPT meeting.

Student’s primary argument regarding reading needs is that they are addressed in a large group. She argues that BOE’s definition of small group is up to ten students as compared to Private School’s definition of small group which is no more than four and that Private School does not believe Student can benefit from reading instruction in such a large group. SpecEd Teacher is the responsible staff person and service implementer for the academic skills goals, including reading. She testified that the encoding/decoding class is ten students spread over four sections so that there are 2-3 students in each section. The IEP addresses Student’s reading needs based on evaluation results and feedback from Private School providers.

Student’s Attorney argues that the transition plan was perfunctorily discussed at the PPT meeting and not individualized or thoughtful. At the PPT meeting, BOE’s Transition Counselor spent ten minutes reviewing his five-page assessment report and recommendations. Private School’s Transition Coordinator commented positively on the report and stated that she already updated Student’s goals based on the results of the assessment. No one raised any questions or concerns about the individualized assessment or resultant goals. The IEP includes goals for post-secondary education/training, employment, and independent living skills. The IEP notes Student’s strengths, interest in singing professionally, needs, and impact of her disability in this area. Student’s transition goals were established based on the results of her individualized transition assessment without objection.

Student’s brief argues that the proposed IEP does not provide for Student to be transported to and to attend Magnet School. The parties’ Stipulated Facts state: “The PPT recommended placement at [BOE] High School in conjunction with the [Magnet School] program” and that BOE issued PWN consistent with that recommendation. House Administrator testified that he thought it was a foregone conclusion that Student would attend Magnet School in the afternoons regardless of where she attended school in the morning.

Magnet School is a general education program with no special education or related services. As of the date of the hearing, Student had participated successfully in the Magnet School program for one and one-half school years. There is no evidence that Student requires special education services to allow her to access and benefit from the Magnet School general education program.

At the May 2025 PPT meeting, Student’s Advocate asked BOE’s Administrator how BOE’s proposal impacts Student’s attendance at Magnet School. He stated that it does not impact it and that she will receive transportation to Magnet School the same as any other student who attends.

The IDEA does not require an IEP to identify a student’s general education program that they participate in without specialized instruction or related services. Transportation as a related service is one that is required to assist the child with a disability in benefiting from special education. Student’s participation in the general education program at Magnet School with regular busing that is provided to any student who attends does not constitute special education and related services that must be identified in the IEP. The proposed IEP indicates that Student will spend 26.3 hours (82.19% of the time) with non-disabled peers and 5.15 hours per week in special education. The classes and programs that make up general education hours that do not include special education or related services are not identified in the IEP.

Student’s post-hearing brief argues that the IEP failed to offer individualized and intensive therapeutic or mental health services. Student offered evidence about Private School’s integrated therapeutic model and the availability of trusted staff that Student can talk to outside of the weekly counseling sessions identified in the IEP.

School Psychologist testified that Private School made recommendations for Student’s social emotional goal and BOE agreed to accept those recommendations. School Psychologist is the responsible staff person and service implementer for Student’s social emotional goal. BOE initially proposed one 26-minute individual counseling session per 8-day cycle and increased it to two sessions upon the recommendation of PS Head of School based on Student’s eligibility classification of emotional disability. The IEP also provides many accommodations including “access to social/emotional support and clinicians as needed.”

Guidance Counselor, who is one of three counselors in his assigned House, testified that he has an open-door policy and meets with students regularly to make sure that things are going well and to help them deal with different situations; in addition to those three counselors, there is a school psychologist and social worker assigned to the House to support students; and, in addition to individual counseling provided for in the IEP, they provide counseling support around issues such as problem-solving, student anxieties, and peer struggles on an as-needed basis. The IEP offers individualized services in addition to the services that all students can take advantage of.

Student’s post-hearing brief argues that BOE failed to plan for Student’s transition from a small therapeutic school to the larger environment at BOE High School. At the May 2025 PPT meeting, Student articulately presented her concerns about attending BOE High School. She expressed concern about being able to continue to attend Magnet School, graduating on time, having trusted supports available outside of scheduled counseling hours, and having to make new friends. She stated that she is comfortable at Private School and asks that it not be taken away from her.

There is considerable evidence in the record demonstrating Student’s significant growth from a sixth-grade child with severe mental health and school refusal issues to a bright high school junior who self-advocates, is perseverant, has self-awareness, challenges herself, and is a role model in both the Private School and Magnet School communities.

Student’s Mother attributes that tremendous growth to the Private School environment and program. It is undisputed that Student benefitted from her five years at Private School and has grown tremendously emotionally, psychologically, and academically. Student’s Mother and Private School staff suggest that because Student has been successful in that program, she should remain there where she is happy and progressing and not take a chance in a less restrictive environment.

Student’s classes at Private School have four or fewer Students, all of whom are children with disabilities; in some cases, Student is the only student in the class. Other than chorus, Student’s classes at Magnet School have approximately twelve students. Student successfully transitioned to the larger general education Magnet School program without special education services in fall 2024. Student developed rapport and a trusting relationship with Magnet School Principal and uses him as a trusted support.

Student has initiated more participation with non-disabled students in general education and larger settings (i.e. enrolling at Magnet School and participating in clubs at BOE High School). PS Division Leader testified that part of the process is for Student to learn how to get supports in different environments as she prepares to transition to postsecondary education or training.

At the May 2025 PPT meeting, Student stated that there is a difference in how students behave in different classes based on how much they like the class. One can appreciate the difference between electives for which a student has talent and passion and academics that pose more of a challenge in engagement and social emotional confidence. Student’s transition to Magnet School was an important step in her functional and social emotional growth. At the PPT meeting, BOE’s Program Administrator stated that the IEP plans for additional academic and functional advancement as the next step in Student’s progress and growth.

General education classes at BOE High School typically have 18-24 students. Student is familiar with BOE High School from her time participating in clubs and has some friends there. The proposed IEP contains accommodations and supplementary services to support Student as she progressively moves to a less restrictive environment.

Placement discussions begin with a determination of whether a student can be satisfactorily educated in the general education environment with supplementary aids and services. If that is possible, a more segregated class or program violates the IDEA’s LRE provision.

Student’s Mother and Private School staff testified that they think BOE High School is too large and will be overwhelming for Student and that the rotating eight-day schedule will not allow her to participate in the Magnet School program without impacting her coursework and graduation date. Guidance Counselor credibly testified that he can create a schedule for Student that allows her to receive all required courses, special education services, and counseling while accommodating her attendance at Magnet School and allowing her to graduate on time. Multiple BOE staff testified that the House structure within the larger school provides a more intimate atmosphere with robust programs that will meet Student’s needs.

The standard for evaluating the proposed IEP is not to determine whether Private School or BOE High School is better or more preferred by Student and her mother. The issue is whether the proposed IEP is appropriate – is it individualized on the basis of Student's assessments and performance, reasonably calculated to enable Student to receive a meaningful educational benefit, and administered in the LRE.

The IEP proposed for the 2025-26 school year was individualized based on Student’s assessments, performance, and Private School feedback. BOE proposed a continuum of alternative placements – instruction in general education, academic skills class, individual counseling, transition services, and accommodations - to meet Student’s academic, transition, and social emotional needs while including her in school programs with nondisabled students to the maximum extent appropriate.

There is uncontroverted credible evidence that social relationships are important to Student; she makes friends and develops rapport with staff and students; she is bright, a hard worker, benefits from challenges and positive reinforcement, self-advocates, is a role model for other students; has navigated challenging dynamics between peers; and has a strong sense of self-awareness. There is also uncontroverted credible evidence that she experiences anxiety, can internalize difficult feelings while presenting as happy outwardly, and demonstrates relative weaknesses in working memory. That Student still requires special education services is not reason to find that a less restrictive environment is inappropriate.

The proposed IEP for the 2025-26 school year addresses Student’s special education needs and is reasonably calculated to enable Student to receive educational benefits in the least restrictive environment. BOE has met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it offered Student FAPE within the LRE for the 2025-26 school year.

Final decision and order

1. The Board of Education did not predetermine Student’s Individualized Education Program for the 2025 extended school year or the 2025-26 school year.
2. The Board of Education failed to offer Student a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment during the 2025 extended school year. To remedy the violation, BOE shall fund Student’s enrollment at Private School from the date of this order to the end of Private School’s 2025-26 school year.
3. The Board of Education did not fail to offer Student a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment during the 2025-26 school year.