Connecticut State Department of Education

Teacher of the Year Ceremony
Due to inclement weather, the Teacher of the Year Ceremony has been postponed to December 16, 2025 from 5-7pm. Doors will open at 4pm. The Ceremony will take place at the Bushnell Theater in Hartford, and the order of events will remain the same.

Final Decision and Order Case #26-0021

November 17, 2025

New Haven Board of Education vs Student

Appearing on behalf of the Parent:
Pro se

Appearing on behalf of the District:
Berchem Moses PC
75 Broad Street
Milford, CT  06460

Appearing before:
Patrick L. Kennedy, Esq.
Hearing Officer

Final Decision and Order

Issues:

  1. Was the District’s psychoeducational evaluation appropriate?
  2. Was the District’s social work evaluation appropriate?

Procedural History:

Case 25-0462 was commenced by the District on July 10, 2025.  A prehearing conference was held on July 18, 2025.  At the prehearing conference, hearing dates were set but later rescheduled to October 15, 2025 due to scheduling conflicts. The decision date was determined to be August 22, 2025 and later extended to September 23, 2025; October 23, 2025 and November 21, 2025.

The hearing was held on October 15, 2025   The parties submitted briefs on October 29, 2025.

The following witnesses testified on behalf of the District:

[REDACTED], school psychologist.

[REDACTED], school social worker.

[REDACTED],, school social worker.

The following witness testified on behalf of the Parents:

Mother.1

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

Board exhibits B-1 through B-68 and B-70 through B-78 were entered as full exhibits.

Parents’ exhibits p-1 through P-3, P-12, P-17, P-19, P-23, P-32 through P-34, P-37 through P-43, P-45, P-51, P-53, P-58 through P-64 and P-66 through P-78 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 December 1, 2011, is a student who was in eighth grade at the time of the evaluations2 in question who resides with her Parents within the District.  (B-47.)
  2. On March 4, 2025, the Student was referred by her mother for a determination of eligibility for special education and related services with the primary areas of concern being identified as “Social/Emotional (primary)”.  (B-26)
  3. The Student has a Section 504 plan pursuant to a diagnosis of Depressive Disorder: Unspecified Depressive Disorder and Other: Other Specified Trauma and Stressor Related Disorder.  (B-43.)
  4. Previously, the Student had been expelled from Beecher School after a fighting incident and transferred to Truman School, which are both schools in the New Haven District.  (B-22, B-25.)
  5. As a result of the expulsion, the Student lost a substantial period of time from school.  (B-47, B-48.)
  6. Prior to the incidents culminating in the expulsion, Student was an honor student who did not have problems in school.  (B-47, B-48,)
  7. At the PPT meeting, the team concluded that evaluation was warranted.  (B-39.)
  8. On March 24, 2025, the Parents provided consent for a psychoeducational evaluation, social work evaluation and speech and language evaluation.3  (B-41.)
  9. The psychoeducational evaluation was done by [REDACTED], the school psychologist.  (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  10. [REDACTED] possesses a bachelor’s degree in the areas of history and psychology, a master’s in school psychology and a sixth-year diploma from Southern Connecticut State University,  (Testimony of [REDACTED], B-78.)
  11. [REDACTED] has a certification in school psychology and license in community counseling from the State of Connecticut as well as a national certification in school psychology.  (Testimony of [REDACTED], B-78.)
  12. [REDACTED] has served as a school psychologist in the Bridgeport and New Haven school districts for 15 years, has worked with students of all age and grade levels and has been trained to administer tests.  (Testimony of [REDACTED], B-78.)
  13. The components of the evaluation were review of school records, observation of the Student in structured and unstructured environments, an interview with the Student, consultation with classroom teachers, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC)-V, Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement-3, Behavior Assessment Scales for Children (BASC)-3, Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning (BRIEF)-2, Emotional Disturbance Decision Tree and Beck Youth Inventories-2.  (B-47.)
  14. The records review included a discussion of difficulties which the Student had had at her previous school, her improved outlook at her current school and the results of a Section 504 meeting which included a discussion of the Student’s diagnoses.  (B-47, Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  15. The evaluator interviewed the Student about her family, friends and school and areas where she is doing well and those which are more of a challenge.  (B-47, Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  16. The report contained a summary of interviews with the teachers of the Student which reported mostly appropriate social interactions other than minor typical adolescent behavior and progress in academics with some areas of weakness and a tendency toward distraction.  (B-47, Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  17. The evaluator observed the Student in Science and Physical Education classes in blocks of around 30 minutes.  (B-47, Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  18. The WISC-V is a standardized test which was administered in accordance with the publisher’s guidelines and normed for the Student’s age and grade level.  (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  19. The WISC-V measured Verbal Comprehension, Visual Spatial, Fluid Reasoning, Working Memory and Processing Speed (all of which had two components each) and found the Student to be performing generally in the average range with an overall IQ in the average range.  (B-47, Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  20. The auditory subtest of the Woodcock-Johnson IV test was administered because there had been a diagnosis of potential auditory processing difficulties.  (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  21. The Woodcock-Johnson IV found phonological processing, non-word repetition and overall auditory processing to be in the average range and the evaluator found it not to be an area of concern.  (B-47, Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  22. The Kaufman Test of Educational Acievement-3 is a standardized test which was administered in accordance with the publisher’s instructions and normed for the Student’s age and grade level.  (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  23. The Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement-3 tested reading, mathematics and written language (each with two components) and found scores mostly in the average range.  (B-47, Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  24. The evaluation also included the BASC-3 social-emotional rating scales.  (B-47, Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  25. The rating scales were completed by the Mother, the social studies teacher and the Student.  (B-47, Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  26. The rating scales completed by the Mother found the Student to be average in the adaptive scales but at risk in the areas of externalizing problems, internalizing problems and behavioral symptoms index, with some components of those scales being clinically significant.  (B-47, Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  27. The teacher reported the Student to be at risk overall in school problems and adaptive scales and in the components of conduct problems, attention problems and study skills and average in all other respects.  (B-47, Testimony of [REDACTED].)  The Student’s self-evaluation produced clinically significant in all categories except for school problems and in a majority of components (with three of the remaining nine being “at risk”).  (B-47, Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  28. The evaluator sat with the Student but did not interact with her much as she appeared to understand the questions.  (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  29. The Student also completed the Beck Youth Inventories, which reported extremely elevated anger, below average self-esteem and mildly elevated results for depression and disruptive behavior.  (B-47, Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  30. The evaluator also administered an Emotional Disturbance Decision Tree which was completed by the general education teacher.  (B-47, Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  31. The test was normed for the age and grade range of the Student and was administered in accordance with the instructions of the publisher.  (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  32. The test found mild to moderate concerns in all areas except for pervasive mood or depression.  (B-47, Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  33. The evaluation also included the BRIEF-2, which was completed by the Mother, the language arts teacher and the Student.  (B-47, Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  34. The evaluation was the most current version of the BRIEF.  (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  35. The evaluation found very elevated levels of concern from the Parent and the teacher in different areas and several areas of slightly elevated or elevated concern from them but lesser areas of concern from the Student.  (B-47, Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  36. The social work evaluation was completed by [REDACTED] incorporating information obtained from a parent interview by [REDACTED]. (B-48.)
  37. In addition to the parent interview, the evaluation consisted of a student interview, teacher interview, classroom observation and school record review conducted by [REDACTED].  (B-48.)
  38. [REDACTED] received a bachelor’s degree in social work from Central Connecticut State University, a masters in elementary education from the University of Bridgeport and a masters in social work from Southern Connecticut State University.  (Testimony of [REDACTED], B-77.)
  39. [REDACTED] holds a professional educator certificate in school social work from the State of Connecticut.  (Testimony of [REDACTED], B-77.)
  40. [REDACTED] has worked at her current school as a school social worker for eighteen years and previously worked for the Department of Children and Families and a charter school in Bridgeport.  (Testimony of [REDACTED], B-77.)
  41. [REDACTED] conducted the parent interview on the evaluation for [REDACTED], who had been assigned the evaluation, because [REDACTED] went on bereavement leave.  (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  42. [REDACTED] conducted a personal interview with the Mother using a standard list of questions developed by the social work department in the New Haven school system.  (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  43. The information obtained in the parent interview was incorporated into the evaluation report in the discussions of developmental history, health history, family history and school history as well as a portion of the discussion of current functioning.  (Testimony of [REDACTED], P-48,)
  44. The information developed from the parent interview was gathered un accordance with the generally accepted principles of school social work and was sufficient, valid and reliable for the purpose of informing the PPT.  (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  45. [REDACTED] received a bachelor’s degree in English at the University of Connecticut and a master’s in social work from Fordham University.  (Testimony of [REDACTED], B-76.)
  46. [REDACTED] holds a Connecticut educator’s certificate, has worked at Truman School as a social worker for 15 years and previously worked as a social worker for a nonprofit agency.  (Testimony of [REDACTED], B-76.)
  47. [REDACTED] obtained information from the language arts teacher and math teacher concerning the Student’s performance and behavior in class.  (Testimony of [REDACTED], P-48.)
  48. The teachers filled out standard forms developed by the New Haven school system and [REDACTED] did follow-up interviews with them. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  49. The information obtained was discussed in the first paragraph of the section on current functioning,  (B-48, Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  50. [REDACTED] also conducted a classroom observation of the Student in her social studies class.  (B-48, Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  51. [REDACTED] generally observed that the Student’s class participation was on par with that of her peers and did not identify any particular behaviors as being of concern.  (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  52. [REDACTED] also conducted an interview with the Student at her office which followed a prescribed format.  (Testimony of [REDACTED], P-48.)
  53. The overall impression of the Student was that she had transitioned well to Truman and had many strengths and interests although she did sometimes exhibit some avoidance behaviors which the teachers and the evaluator were not overly concerned about.  (Testimony of [REDACTED], P-48.)
  54. The social work evaluation was conducted in accordance with generally accepted standards of the practice of social work and was sufficient, valid and reliable to inform the PPT’s discussion of the Student’s eligibility.  (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  55. The PPT was convened on May 29, 2025 and the evaluations were presented.  (B-56.)
  56. The Mother stated her disagreement with the psychoeducational and social work evaluations and requested IEEs in those areas.  (B-56.)
  57. The meeting adjourned without taking further action.  (B-56.)

Conclusionf of Law and Discussion:

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, 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.

1. Was the District’s psychoeducational evaluation appropriate?

Applying the standards discussed above, 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 and for determining an appropriate program (Findings of Fact 13-35). 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 18, 22, 31 and 34). The assessments were used for the purposes for which they were valid and reliable (Findings of Fact 18, 22, 31 and 34). The individual administering the assessments was trained and knowledgeable (Findings of Fact 10-12). The assessments were administered in accordance with the instructions provided by the producer of the assessments (Findings of Fact 18, 22 and 31). The evaluator used a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant information about the Student including information provided by the Parents (Findings of Fact 13-35).

In their short brief, the Parents make vague claims of inadequacy in the evaluation without identifying exactly what in the record demonstrates any specific defects therein.4 At one point, they seem to suggest that what they perceive to be the refusal of the PPT to grant an IEP to the Student5 is what is really at issue: “…I urge the hearing officer to grant the request for an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) to determine if the denial of [REDACTED] IEP is genuinely based on factual information and not the result of procedural errors, biases, or opinionated judgments.” However, the ultimate authority on the disability that a child is classified with and the program he receives is the PPT, not the evaluator. Conn. State. Regs. §10-76d-10; E.P. By & Through J.P. vs. Howard County Public School System, 2017 WL 3608180, 21 (D.Md.8/21/17).

Accordingly, the undersigned finds the psychoeducational evaluation to be appropriate.

2. Was the District’s social work evaluation appropriate?

Applying the standards discussed with reference to the previous evaluation, the undersigned finds that the social work evaluation was appropriate.  The evaluator used a variety of assessment tools.  (Findings of Fact 36-37.) The evaluator did not use any single measure or assessment as the sole criterion for determining whether the Student had a disability and for determining an appropriate program.  (Findings of Fact 41-43, 47-53.)  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 42, 48 and 52.)  The assessments were used for the purposes for which they were valid and reliable. (Findings of Fact 42-44, 47-54.)  The individuals administering the assessments were trained and knowledgeable.  (Findings of Fact 38-40, 45-46.)  The evaluator used a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant information about the Student including information provided by the Parents.  (Findings of Fact 41-43, 47-53.)

Since the Parents’ arguments mostly are directed to the evaluations in general rather than the methodology used in the specific evaluations, the comments made on the first issue, above, are applicable to this one.  The only comments of the Parents specifically directed to the social work evaluation6 cannot be confused with substantial arguments.

Accordingly, the undersigned finds the social work evaluation to be appropriate.

Final Decision and Order:

The evaluations conducted by the District are found to be appropriate and the request for independent evaluations is denied.

Notes:

  1. The Parents proffered their educational advocate, [REDACTED], as a witness, but her testimony was excluded in response to a motion in limine as it was determined that she had no relevant testimony to provide on the narrow issue that was the subject of the hearing.↩
  2. Ninth grade at the time of the hearing and as of this writing.↩
  3. The request for independent evaluations did not include the latter area and it is not part of the matters at issue in this hearing.↩
  4. It should be noted that the Parents provided no expert testimony to buttress their position.↩
  5. It appears that the PPT adjourned without making a formal determination on the Student’s eligibility for special education when the Parents requested IEEs.↩
  6. Namely, that [REDACTED] was “grieving” because she was on bereavement leave and that [REDACTED] had not never met the Student ([REDACTED] did).↩