Connecticut State Department of Education

Final Decision and Order Case #26-0030

November 25, 2025

Student v. New London Board of Education

Appearing on behalf of the Parent:
Jennifer Rawlings, Esq.
Center for Indigenous People’s Rights
P.O. Box 10337
Cranston, RI 02910

Appearing on behalf of the District:
Erin Shaffer, Esq.
Shipman & Goodwin LLP
One Constitution Plaza
Hartford, CT. 06103

Appearing before:
Adrienne Lawston, Esq.
Hearing Officer

Final Decision and Order

I. Procedural History:

Student’s Parent filed a Request for Due Process Hearing pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (IDEA) via Request for Impartial Special Education Hearing dated July 22, 2025. The undersigned Hearing Officer was appointed to preside over this case on July 23, 2025. The Board of Education (Board) received the Request for Hearing on July 22, 2025. The 30-day resolution period ended August 21, 2025 and the original 45-day deadline to mail the final decision and order was October 3, 2025.

A prehearing conference was conducted on August 13, 2025, and the hearing was scheduled for September 30, 2025 and October 2, 2025. The Parties jointly requested a 30-day extension of the October 3, 2025 decision deadline, based on the need for additional hearing dates. The decision deadline was extended from October 3, 2025 to October 31, 2025.

The hearing convened on September 30, 2025, and was continued on October 2, 2025, and the additional hearing date of October 21, 2025 was added. On the record, the decision date was extended at the request of the Board to November 28, 2025 without objection by the Parent, in order for the Parties to obtain the hearing transcript, to submit closing briefs and for the Hearing Officer decision.

II. 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.

III. Summary:

By due process hearing request dated July 22, 2025, the Parent seeks an out-of-district placement for her daughter at a state-approved therapeutic day school that specializes in serving students with autism and complex needs. The Parent contends that the Board failed to provide/offer the Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) by not adequately addressing her safety, medical, and educational needs.

IV. Issues:

  • Did the Board fail to provide the Student a FAPE pursuant to the June 14, 2024 Planning and Placement Team (PPT) meeting/Individualized Education Program (IEP) for the extended school year (ESY) during summer 2024, and the 2024-2025 school year, by failing to implement the student’s medical directive?
  • Did the Board fail to offer the Student a FAPE for the 2025–2026 school year pursuant to the July 11, 2025 PPT meeting/IEP by failing to meet the Student’s safety and medical needs and provide an opportunity for educational progress?
  • If the Board did not offer the Student a FAPE for the 2025-2026 school, is an out-of-district placement at a state-approved therapeutic day school that specializes in serving students with intensive autism and complex medical needs an appropriate placement, and should the Board be ordered to fund the placement?
  • If the Board did not offer the Student a FAPE for the ESY during summer 2024, and the 2024-2025 school year, what should be the remedy?

V. Findings of Relevant Fact:1

Prior to the hearing, the parties submitted a Joint Undisputed Stipulation of Facts (HO Ex. 2), which the Hearing Officer has reviewed and incorporated parts of it into the following findings:

General Background

1. Student is currently eligible for special education and related services under the classification of Autism. The student was enrolled in school for ESY in summer 2024, and the 2024-2025 school year until October 24, 2024, when the Parent withdrew the Student from New London Public Schools, providing Notice to Home School. During this time frame, the Student only attended school for three days during ESY (July 15, 2024 through July 17, 2024). The Parent registered the Student on or about June 17, 2025 for the 2025-2026 school year. The Student is enrolled as a second grade student at Nathan Hale Arts Magnet School (Nathan Hale), a school operated by the Board. The Student has not attended school for the 2025-2026 school year (HO Ex. 2).

June 14, 2024 IEP; ESY Recommendation for Summer 2024

2. On June 14, 2024, the PPT convened to conduct an annual review. They recommended that the Student participate in the ESY program during summer 2024. The Student’s IEP, and all subsequent IEPs provided a seizure action plan, and provided the Student with a 1:1 paraeducator at all times, in all areas, to ensure implementation of the Student’s seizure action plan and the Student’s safety (Board Exs. 5, 22, 33).

Preparation for ESY Summer 2024

3. On or about June 21, 2024, the Supervisor of Special Education (“SpecEd Supervisor”) for prekindergarten through grade five, created Summer ESY Guidelines for the Student, incorporating the feedback and information provided by the Parent during a school visit (HO Ex. 2). ESY Guidelines were developed in collaboration with the Parent and Parent’s advocate (Board Ex. 13; Testimony, SpecEd Supervisor). The Parent provided information for the Guidelines at different points in time, with the last information being provided by her via email on July 7, 2024. The Guidelines were reviewed with classroom staff verbally and provided by email before the Student attended ESY (Testimony, SpecEd Supervisor).

4. There was a registration form that needed to be submitted in order for the Student to attend ESY, and the form was provided via email to the Parent on June 20, 2024 (Board Ex. 7, Testimony, SpecEd Supervisor). On July 5, 2024, the Parent emailed the completed form to the Board. On July 7, 2024, the Parent emailed the Board to schedule the Student’s first day of ESY for Wednesday July 10th, and to share additional information about the Student’s behaviors. The Board initially responded to the Parent by email confirming July 10th as the Student’s first day. The Summer ESY Guidelines were updated on July 8th to incorporate the additional feedback provided by the Parent (HO Ex. 2; Testimony, SpecEd Supervisor).

5. Typically, the ESY forms are due March 1st of a school year. In this case the Board put the ESY program in place for the Student with shorter notice than normal (Testimony, SpecEd Supervisor).

6. The Student’s start date for ESY was moved to Monday July 15, 2024 to allow the Student’s paraprofessional and other staff to be trained on the Student’s seizure action plan prior to the Student beginning ESY (HO Ex. 2). Also, staff had to become familiar with the Student’s ESY Guidelines (Testimony, SpecEd Supervisor).

7. On Thursday, July 11, 2024, the Board notified the Parent via email that two paraprofessionals and the classroom teacher had completed the seizure training. The Board also shared that the ESY nurse would be in touch to review the Student’s health information (HO Ex. 2; Board Ex. 14; Testimony, SpecEd Supervisor).

Student’s Seizure Action Plan

8. The Student has had two documented seizures in the past, with the most recent occurring in October 2023.2 Student’s seizure action plan requires an immediate call to 911 for transport to the closest emergency room and administration of emergency medication after onset of seizure. The Student’s seizure action plan also requires that the Student’s 1:1 paraeducator carry the Student’s emergency seizure medication on her person to facilitate administration should a seizure occur (Board Exs. 2, 20, 33; Testimony, Student’s Nurse Practitioner (“Student’s NP”), Board’s Nursing Supervisor).

Training and Implementation/Seizure Action Plan

9. During ESY 2024, two Registered Nurses covered the elementary students at the school where the Student attended the ESY program. They rotated so that one nurse was present on each day (Testimony, Board’s Nursing Supervisor).

10. Board’s Registered Nurse 1 (“RN1”) provided credible testimony that she would follow the Student’s seizure action plan (Testimony, RN1). When staff are trained on seizure action plans, they follow the plans. Nurses give extensive training and emphasize the safety that’s involved in a seizure action plan and how critical it is to follow it word for word. (Testimony, Board’s Executive Director of School and Family Supports (“Executive Director”)).

11. The Board’s Registered Nurse 2 (“RN2) trained multiple staff working in the Student’s ESY classroom on the Student’s seizure action plan and administration of her emergency medication (Testimony, RN2).

12. School Staff were appropriately trained in the student’s seizure action plan in the event that the Student were to have a seizure at school (Testimony, Board’s Nursing Supervisor; SpecEd Supervisor). The Student’s ESY 2024 special education classroom teacher (“Teacher”), and the Student’s dedicated 1:1 paraeducator (“Paraeducator”) received seizure training regarding the Student’s seizure action plan and administration of the emergency seizure medication (Testimony, Teacher, Paraeducator).

13. The 1:1 paraeducator carried the Student’s emergency seizure medication (Testimony, Teacher, Paraeducator).

14. The 1:1 paraeducator understood that she would implement the Student’s seizure action plan by asking someone to call 911 while she administered the Student’s emergency medication. (Testimony, Paraeducator). Simultaneous administration of the emergency medication while calling 911 was compliant with the Student’s seizure action plan (Testimony, Student’s NP, RN2).

15. The Student did not have a seizure during her three days of attendance at ESY during summer 2024 (Testimony, Teacher).

Staff Coverage for 1:1 Paraeducator

16. While the classroom teacher would provide the paraeducator with a break if needed (such as to use the restroom), the Board demonstrated a plan in place in the event that the Student’s 1:1 paraeducator was absent. Initially, they would determine if a student in the class was absent and if there were an extra paraprofessional in that room who was already trained, and they would be the first resource. ESY is also staffed with physical therapists, eight occupational therapists, Registered Behavior Technicians and Board Certified Behavior Analysts (BCBAs), who would be another resource if needed. If the paraprofessional was absent, the Board would supply another person to be in the classroom while the classroom teacher could work one to one with the student. They would not decrease the ratio of adults to students within the classroom (Testimony, Executive Director).

Parent’s Communication with RN1 on day three of ESY

17. Parent was “frustrated” and “mad” as a result of questions that the Nurse asked when meeting at Student’s drop off on the third day of ESY. The nurse asked questions about the Student’s seizures and also the requirement to call 911 immediately in the event of a seizure. As a result of Parent’s conversation with RN1, the Parent discontinued the Student’s attendance at the Summer 2024 ESY Program (Testimony, Parent).

18. Although the Parent advocate testified that there was a dispute about whether RN1 would call 911 immediately in the event of a seizure, she was not present during the conversation (Testimony, Parent Advocate). The Parent did not make that specific assertion in her testimony, although it is clear that she expressed concerns about the safety of her child. RN1 indicated that she would follow the seizure action plan (Testimony Parent, RN1).

19. The Parent believed that her child was safe with the paraprofessional, which is the reason that she allowed the Student to attend school on day three after the conversation with RN1 (Testimony, Parent).

Written Documentation of Seizure Action Plan

20. The Board does not have written documentation that staff working with the Student received seizure training (Testimony, Parent, RN1, RN2).

21. The Student’s ESY 2024 staff signed paperwork noting that they received seizure training regarding implementation of the Student’s seizure action plan, but the documentation was lost. As each staff member came in for the training, they wrote their names on a sign-in sheet. The sign-in sheet was dated, indicated seizure training, and included their signature (Testimony, RN2).

Post-ESY Summer 2024; 2024-2025 School Year

22. The Board convened a PPT meeting on September 16, 2024 at which time the team reviewed the Student’s seizure care plan and seizure training provided by the school nurse (Board Ex. 22). All parties agreed that should the Student attend school, the Student’s seizure action plan would be implemented by the school, including the requirement that 911 be called immediately (HO Ex. 2). All parties agreed that it was an appropriate plan that would keep the Student safe in the event of a seizure (Board Ex. 22; Testimony, Executive Director).

23. The Board also developed a comprehensive Individual Student Plan dated October 11, 2024, which included, among other things, supportive measures to ensure appropriate coverage by staff fully trained to implement the Student’s seizure action plan (Board Ex. 25).

24. The PPT recommended that the Student’s IEP be implemented as written at Nathan Hale. The Parent disagreed with the PPT recommendation and requested an out-of-district placement for the Student based on safety concerns. The Parent told the school team that she would not send the Student to school (HO Ex. 2).

25. Based on the Student’s IEP, the recommendation was a self-contained neurodiverse classroom. This classroom is led by a certified special education teacher and staffed with paraprofessionals based on the students’ needs. They are integrated into the general education settings as much as possible, based on the students’ needs (Testimony, Executive Director).

26. The Student did not return to school for the 2024-2025 school year (HO Exhibit 2, Board Ex. 24).

27. On or about October 8, 2024, the Parties engaged in mediation. The Parties agreed that the Student would attend school at Nathan Hale for a trial placement period of 30 days. The agreement included Parent opportunity to observe Student’s programming, and a PPT at the conclusion of the trial period to discuss any safety concerns. A mediation agreement was signed by both Parties on October 11, 2024 (HO Ex. 2; Board Ex. 26).

28. On October 14, 2024, the Parent requested through her advocate to observe the classroom for three days, beginning the next day, with less than 24 hours’ notice. The Executive Director responded that they needed 24 hours’ notice for the first date and after checking further advised that the parent could observe on the subsequent dates (Student Ex. 10; Testimony, Parent, Executive Director).

29. The Parent did not send the Student to school for the trial placement period based upon the Board’s indication that they needed 24 hours’ notice to schedule an observation. The mediation agreement had indicated that the observations should be arranged at a “mutually agreeable” time, and the Parent did not believe the Board’s indication that they needed 24 hours’ notice to be a proper interpretation of the mutually agreeable requirement (Testimony, Parent, Parent Advocate, Executive Director).3

30. On October 24, 2024, the Parent submitted her Notice of Intent to home school, and withdrew the Student from New London Public Schools (HO Exhibit 2).

2025-2026 School Year/Student Re-enrollment/July 11, 2025 PPT Meeting/IEP

31. On or about March 6, 2025, the Parent emailed the Board to inform that she would be re-enrolling the Student. On or about June 11, 2025, the Parent contacted the Board to request a PPT meeting prior to the Student beginning school. The Parent completed the registration process on or about June 17, 2025 for the 2025-2026 school year. A PPT meeting was held on July 11, 2025. The meeting was conducted as an annual review and a new student transfer (HO Exhibit 2).

32. Student’s Outside Evaluation. On or about July 8, 2025, the Parent’s advocate provided a copy of the February 26, 2025 Autism Diagnostic Evaluation conducted by a psychologist at KSM Behavioral Services, LLC. The stated purpose of the evaluation was for the Parent to obtain a new applied behavior analysis service provider. The Student had been discharged from her previous provider when she turned seven years old. The evaluator concluded that the Student would benefit from a placement in an appropriate environment or educational/therapeutic program that provides a FAPE. The evaluator concluded that - only if a free and appropriate public program that meets the Student’s needs could not be found - should the Board fund an appropriate private placement that specializes in severe autism spectrum disorder. The outside evaluator recommended ABA therapy in the school setting to continue increasing independence with various skills in all contexts and placement in an appropriate educational environment with (1) school based behavior services; (2) 1:1 paraprofessional at all times; (3) emergency seizure medication with her at all times and staff training and adherence to seizure action plan; (4) risk assessment to address elopement concerns; and (5) provision of adequate supervision, services, staffing and staff training to deal with above issues, and also the Student’s feeding disorder to avoid choking (Board Ex. 29).

33. At the July 11, 2025 PPT meeting, the Parent again requested an outplacement for the Student. The PPT recommended continuation of the Student’s IEP and placement at Nathan Hale. During the PPT meeting, the school nurse again reviewed the Student’s seizure care plan and the seizure training that the nurse had provided for Board staff. All parties agreed that the plan was appropriate and would keep the Student safe in the event of a seizure should she attend school (HO Ex. 2).

34. The outside evaluation provided by the Parent was not reviewed at the July 11, 2025 PPT meeting because, at the beginning of the PPT meeting after the Parent requested outplacement, and the Board explained why they did not believe outplacement was appropriate, the Parent ended the meeting (Testimony, SpecEd Supervisor).

35. The neurodiverse classroom recommended for the student is a specialized classroom providing highly individualized support in accordance with student needs and IEPs. The staffing in the neurodiverse classrooms allow the team to provide the type of programming required by a Student’s IEP. The neurodiverse classrooms have dedicated Board Certified Behavior Analysts and Behavior Technicians to provide school-based behavior services when necessary. (Board Ex. 33; Testimony, SpecEd Supervisor, Executive Director).

36. The 1:1 paraprofessional served multiple purposes in addition to implementation of the seizure action plan. Because she was to be there at all times, in all areas, she would be able to provide supervision at all times, such as while eating, and to prevent elopement (Board Ex. 33; Testimony, SpecEd Supervisor, Executive Director).

37. The Board’s July 11, 2025 IEP substantially encompasses the recommendations from the outside evaluation provided to Board and includes a seizure action plan and seizure training; a 1:1 paraprofessional at all times for instructional/behavioral support, in all areas; BCBA consult 1x per month for 30 minutes during the school year, and 1x per week for 30 minutes during ESY (Board Exs. 33, 29; Testimony, Executive Director, SpecEd Supervisor).

38. The Student’s July 11, 2025 IEP includes the following special education and related services: individual/small group instruction for academic skills (1x per week for 1932 minutes); occupational therapy services (1x per week for 60 minutes); and language/communication (1x per month for 240 minutes) (Board Ex. 33). There is no dispute regarding the appropriateness of these services.

Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)

39. A goal of the Board is to have students educated in the LRE. In terms of placement, the Board looks at whether those services can be implemented within district programming before making determinations about outplacements. They look at what the student needs to be successful and whether or not they can be successful within one of their programs or if they need a higher level of support that the Board is not able to provide (Testimony, Executive Director).

40. The Board is able to manage students with seizures within the New London Public Schools. During the current school year, 8 students have seizure action plans (Testimony, SpecEd Supervisor, RN2).

41. The July 11, 2025 PPT did not believe outplacement was appropriate because, based on evaluations and what they know of the student and their experience with students with similar needs, they have been successfully able to program for students with similar needs to this Student, in one of their self-contained classrooms, and have had really great success with students with very similar profiles and academic needs (Testimony, Executive Director).

42. The Board’s recommended placement, Nathan Hale Arts, is the school that the Student would attend if nondisabled (Board Ex. 34).

43. The July 11, 2025 PPT ensured that the Student would be educated to the maximum extent appropriate with students who are nondisabled (Board Ex. 34).

44. The July 11, 2025 PPT ensured that the Student would participate in nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities with nondisabled students to the maximum extent appropriate to the needs of the Student (Board Ex. 34).

45. The July 11, 2025 PPT considered the use of supplementary aids and services in conjunction with general class placement (Board Ex. 34).

46. The July 11, 2025 PPT determined that the nature and severity of the Student’s disability was such that education in a general education classroom with the use of supplementary aids and services could not be achieved satisfactorily (Board Ex. 34).

47. The July 11, 2025 PPT selected the placement within the continuum of alternate placements which is required to implement the Student’s IEP (Board Ex. 34).

48. The July 11, 2025 PPT considered any potential harmful effect of the placement on the Student (Board Ex. 34).

49. The July 11, 2025 PPT considered any potential harmful effect of the placement on the quality of the services that the child needs (Board Ex. 34).

50. The July 11, 2025 PPT considered any potential harmful effect of the placement on the education of other children (Board Ex. 34).

VI. Conclusions of Law and Discussion:

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

The IDEA serves two primary purposes: (1) ensuring that students with disabilities receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE) that includes special education and related services tailored to their unique needs and prepares them for further education, employment, and independent living; and (2) safeguarding the rights of students with disabilities and their parents. 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1). The Supreme Court in Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982), established a two-part inquiry for determining whether a school district has provided a FAPE: (1) whether the district complied with the IDEA’s procedural requirements; and (2) whether the IEP is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits. See Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206–07; see also Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 1998).

Under the IDEA, if procedural violations are alleged, a Hearing Officer may find that a student did not receive a FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies (1) impeded the student's right to a FAPE; (2) significantly impeded the parents' opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the student; or (3) caused a deprivation of educational benefits. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(ii); 34 CFR 300.513(a)(2).

In addition, the IDEA requires that services be provided in the least restrictive environment (LRE). 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A). To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities must be educated with nondisabled peers, and removal from the regular education environment may occur only when a child’s needs cannot be met in that setting with supplementary aids and services. Id.

Under the IDEA and its implementing regulations, a party requesting an impartial hearing may not raise issues at the impartial hearing that were not raised in its original due process complaint notice unless the other party agrees. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(B); 34 CFR 300.508(d)(3)(i), 300.511(d); or the original due process complaint is amended with permission of the Hearing Officer at least five days prior to the impartial hearing. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)(II); 34 CFR 300.507(d)(3)(ii).

The Board has the burden of proving the appropriateness of the Student's program and placement by a preponderance of the evidence. Conn. Agencies Regs. § 10-76h-14.

Did the Board fail to provide the student a FAPE pursuant to the June 14, 2024 PPT meeting/IEP for the ESY during summer 2024, and the 2024-2025 school year, by failing to implement the student’s medical directive?

Regarding the ESY during summer 2024, and the 2024-2025 school year, the issue is limited to whether the Board failed to provide the student a FAPE, by not implementing the student’s medical directive.4 The student’s medical directive is the Student’s Seizure Action Plan.

The student was enrolled for the extended school year (ESY) during summer 2024. The student only attended three days of ESY in summer 2024. The Parent withdrew the Student from New London Public Schools, providing Notice to Home School on October 24, 2024 (Findings of Fact, No.1).

Implementation of Student’s Seizure Action Plan

Based upon testimony, documentary evidence, and the Joint Stipulation of facts, it is undisputed that the Board developed a seizure action plan that appropriately addresses the student’s seizure disorder. The Parent asserts, as expressed in their post-hearing brief, that the Board failed to implement the Student’s June 14, 2024 IEP as written, by failing to implement the Student’s seizure action plan and by failing to provide the Student’s 1:1 staff pairing. It is noted that a 1:1 paraeducator is required to implement the seizure action plan.

The Parent’s claims are not supported by the hearing record, which shows that (1) the Board had assigned and provided a 1:1 paraeducator to the Student; (2) the school nurse had appropriately trained staff on the seizure action plan; and (3) designated staff were capable of implementing the seizure action plan, and indicated that they would implement it in the event of a seizure. Parent’s claim speculates that the school district would not adhere to the seizure action plan in the event of a seizure; however, there is no factual basis in the hearing record to conclude that trained staff was either unable or unwilling to implement the plan (Findings of Fact, Nos. 2, 7, 10-14, 16, 18).

The Parent asserts in her post-hearing brief that one of the school’s registered nurses (RN1) “expressed hesitancy in her willingness to call 911 at the onset of a seizure.” However, the hearing record does not support finding that the nurse would deviate from the seizure action plan, either in training of staff or implementation (Findings of Fact, Nos. 10, 18). While the Parent was “frustrated” and “mad” with questions that the Nurse asked when meeting at Student’s drop off on the third day of ESY, questions about how the seizures present in the student, and the need to call 911 do not lead to a factual conclusion that the RN would deviate from the seizure action plan in implementation or in training school staff; and in this case, the Nurse was clear in her testimony that she would not deviate from the seizure action plan (Findings of Fact, Nos. 10, 17).

Provision of 1:1 Paraeducator

While the Parent does not allege that the Student did not have a 1:1 paraeducator assigned to her, the claim that the Board failed to provide the 1:1 paraeducator is based in part on testimony that in the event the paraeducator needed a break (such as to use the restroom), the classroom teacher took over the 1:1 paraeducator’s role, by staying with the Student, performing the role of the paraeducator, and keeping the medication with him in case it was needed. Testimony of the Executive Director added that there was a plan in place for coverage in the event that the Student’s paraeducator was absent, which assured that the Student would have the 1:1 support even if the paraeducator were absent (Findings of Fact, No. 16).

The Parent’s assertion regarding a staffing shortage of paraeducators at the New London School District likewise does not support a finding that the Board would not have provided a 1:1 paraeducator if the Student had continued attending for the remainder of the Summer 2024 ESY program, the 2024-2025 school year (or the 2025-2026 school year). This assertion about inability to implement is speculative and the Parent has not established that the school is factually incapable of providing the 1:1 paraeducator. See M.O. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 793 F.3d 236, 244 (2d Cir. 2015); R.E. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, 195 (2d Cir. 2012).

Written Documentation of Seizure Action Plan Training

Regarding staff training on the seizure action plan, the Parent does not allege that the training was not done, or that the training was not appropriate, but asserts that a failure to maintain required written documentation of the staff training resulted in a denial of FAPE.

Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-212a(f)(1) and (2) qualified school employees, including teachers and paraeducators, may administer antiepileptic medication for students with a medically diagnosed epileptic condition that “requires prompt treatment in accordance with the student’s individual seizure action plan.” Such qualified school employees must receive annual instruction on seizure disorders, including interpretation of individual student’s emergency seizure action plan, recognition of the individual student’s seizure activity, administration techniques for emergency seizure medication, and when to activate emergency medical services. The statute further requires that the school nurse attest in writing that such qualified school employee has completed seizure training.

While the evidence shows that the Board failed to maintain required written documentation of the seizure action plan training, and does not include an attestation in writing by the school nurse that qualified school employees completed the seizure action plan training, convincing evidence shows that qualified school employees were provided appropriate training by the school nurse in the Student’s seizure action plan in the event that a seizure were to occur. As such, while testimony indicated that the Board does not know what happened to training documentation that was created, and does not provide a nurse attestation, it is clear that the training was, in fact, properly conducted (Findings of Fact, Nos. 10-14, 20-21).

While the Parent asserts that the failure to maintain required seizure training records resulted in a denial of FAPE, such does not rise to the level of a procedural violation that denied the Student FAPE because the failure to maintain documentation of training or provide the nurse attestation did not (1) impede the student's right to a FAPE; (2) significantly impede the parents' opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the student; or (3) cause a deprivation of educational benefits. 34 CFR 300.513(a)(2). In other words, the documentation failure does not negate the fact that appropriate training on the seizure action plan was conducted, and staff were ready, willing and able to implement the seizure action plan in the event of a seizure. Accordingly, failure to maintain training documentation does not support a finding that the Board did not provide the Student with a FAPE for ESY Summer 2024 and the 2024-2025 school year.

In sum, the evidence does not support a finding that the Board failed to provide the student with a FAPE for the extended school year (ESY) during summer 2024 and the 2024-2025 school year, by failing to implement the student’s medical directive.

Scope of Hearing Issues/Parent’s July 22, 2025 Request for Due Process Hearing and Hearing Officer’s August 19, 2025 Prehearing Conference Summary and Order

As previously indicated, the Parent, in her post-hearing brief, seeks to raise additional issues concerning the ESY in summer 2024 and the 2024-2025 school year that are beyond the scope of the issue delineated in the Hearing Officer’s August 19, 2025 Prehearing Conference Summary and Order and the Parent’s request for a due process hearing.

The Parent phrased the issue concerning ESY in her request for a due process hearing as: “During ESY in July 2024, [the Student’s] assigned staff were not properly trained in seizure protocol, and her attendance resulted in increased distress, behavioral regression, and safety risks.” At the prehearing (PHC) conference,5 when the Hearing Officer asked for clarification about the issue and the time period, Parent’s counsel clarified that the issue for that time period was the failure to provide a FAPE based on the failure to implement the student’s medical directive, and that the time period should include the 2024-2025 school year, and not just be limited to ESY. She indicated that although the Student had only attended ESY for three days, she was enrolled in the school for part of the 2024-2025 school year. The Board did not object to the clarification and expanding the time period beyond Summer ESY. By PHC Summary and Order dated August 19, 2025, the Hearing Officer framed the issue as “Did the Board fail to provide the student a FAPE pursuant to the June 14, 2024 PPT meeting/IEP for the ESY in June/July 2024, and the 2024-2025 school year, by failing to implement the student’s medical directive?” The Hearing Officer’s August 19, 2025 Summary/ Order indicated that if either party believed the Hearing Officer overlooked or misstated any item or requested clarification of an issue, they should submit a written notice to the Hearing Officer within five business days of the date of this Order.

On September 2, 2025, Parent’s Attorney emailed the Hearing Officer and indicated that she believed that the ESY that the student attended in July 2024 would have been considered to have taken place in the 2023-2024 school year. On September 8, 2025, Board’s Attorney emailed that “ESY technically occurs at the start of the following school year, which runs from July 1 through June 30. It might be cleaner for the issue to reference ESY “during the summer of 2024” (without reference to school year) and 2024-2025 school year. By email dated September 8, 2025, Parent’s counsel agreed with referencing ESY as indicated by Attorney for the Board, and the issue for hearing was framed as indicated in the Issue section of this decision. The Parent did not seek clarification on any other issues and did not request to amend the complaint to add any other issues.

Moreover, a party requesting an impartial hearing may not raise issues at the impartial hearing that were not raised in its request for a due process hearing unless the other party agrees or the original due process complaint is amended prior to the impartial hearing with permission given by the Hearing Officer at least five days prior to the impartial hearing. 34 CFR § 300.511(d); 34 CFR § 300.508(d)(3)(i),(ii). See T.M. v. Cornwall Cent. Sch. Dist, 752 F.3d 145, 170 (2d Cir. 2014) (issues not raised in due process complaint notice or amended complaint are forfeited). See also R.E. v. NYC Dep’t of Educ, 694 F.3d at 187 (2d Cir. 2012); M.O. v NYC Dep’t of Educ., 793 F.3d 236 at 245-46 (2d Cir. 2015).

The additional issues raised by the Parent are indicated below:

(1) Whether the Board’s failure to revise the Student’s December 2023 IEP as requested by the Parent to reflect the accuracy of the Student’s needs and abilities deprived the Student of a FAPE (Parental Involvement). The basis of this claim is apparently that (a) the Student’s December 22, 2023 IEP indicates that “mom clarified some areas in the evaluation report that were incorrect and would require revision. School psychologist will make revisions and upload new document” (emphasis added); and (b) Parent and Parent’s advocate testimony that they requested corrections to the evaluation report, but that they were never provided with a corrected evaluation (emphasis added);6

(2) Whether the delay in Student beginning ESY for Summer 2024 deprived the Student of a FAPE;7

(3) Whether the Board’s indication that they needed 24 hours’ notice for a school observation request by the Parent (when a mediation agreement provided for school observations at “mutually agreeable” times) resulted in a denial of FAPE.8

In this instance, the Parent, as the party requesting the impartial hearing, had the first opportunity to identify the range of issues to be addressed at the impartial hearing, and the Parent did not allege the additional issues in her request for a due process hearing; nor did the Parent amend her complaint. Moreover, the Parent's request for a due process hearing cannot reasonably be read, even applying the most liberal standards of notice pleading, to include the issues delineated above. Accordingly, the Parent is precluded from raising these issues now.

Did the Board fail to offer the Student a FAPE for the 2025–2026 school year pursuant to the July 11, 2025 PPT meeting/IEP by failing to meet the Student’s safety and medical needs and provide an opportunity for educational progress?

The July 11, 2025 PPT Meeting/IEP

The Parent registered the Student on or about June 17, 2025, for the 2025–2026 school year, and a PPT meeting was conducted on July 11, 2025. Prior to the PPT meeting, the Board was provided with the Student’s outside evaluation. Although unable to discuss the evaluation at the PPT meeting because the Parent ended the meeting when the PPT indicated that they did not view outplacement as appropriate, the Student’s IEP includes in large part recommendations from the outside evaluation (Findings of Fact, Nos. 31-32, 34-37).

The Parent is seeking an out-of-district placement for her daughter at a state-approved therapeutic day school that specializes in serving students with autism and complex needs, and the focus of the Parent’s assertions concern implementation of the seizure action plan, staff training on the seizure action plan, provision of a 1:1 paraprofessional at all times, and the claim that the public school placement would not be able to implement these requirements. There is agreement between the Board and Parent that the Student requires 1:1 support at all times, and that was included in the IEP. There is agreement between the Board and Parent about the appropriateness of the seizure action plan (Findings of Fact, Nos. 2, 33).

Regarding the Parent’s claim that the Board denied FAPE for the 2025-2026 school year based upon failure to implement the seizure action plan, provision of a 1:1 paraprofessional and training, the Second Circuit has consistently held that challenges to a proposed placement must be based upon more than “mere speculation” that a school will fail to implement an IEP. See M.O. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 793 F.3d at 244; R.E. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 694 F.3d at 195. Here, the Student never attended the public school placement offered in the July 2025 IEP. As such, any conclusion that the District would not have implemented the IEP or ensured her safety is speculative. The record shows that the District is fully capable of meeting the Student’s safety and medical needs, including implementing the seizure action plan, training and providing the required 1:1 paraprofessional (Findings of Fact Nos. 7, 10-14, 16, 22, 23, 36-37).

Least Restrictive Environment

Regarding the Board’s placement of students, the Board must offer a continuum of placements and ensure that students with disabilities are educated with non-disabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate. 34 C.F.R. §300.114(a)(2)(i). Placement must also be based on the child’s IEP and, whenever appropriate, in the school where the child would attend if nondisabled. 34 C.F.R. §300.116(b), (c).

The evidence shows that in determining placement, as required under the IDEA and implementing regulations, the Board seeks to have students educated in the LRE. The Board looks at whether services can be appropriately implemented within district programming before making a determination about outplacement. In this case, the PPT determined that Nathan Hale’s neurodiverse classroom was able to implement the Student’s IEP, and that it represents the Student’s least restrictive environment. Based on evaluations and what they know of the student and their experience with students with similar needs, they have been able to successfully program in one of their self-contained classrooms, and have had success with students with very similar profiles and academic needs. In addition, Nathan Hale is the school where the Student would attend if nondisabled (Findings of Fact, 39-50).

Although the Parent seeks an outplacement for the Student, the Board demonstrated that the public school placement is able to fully implement the Student’s IEP. There is no evidence in the hearing record to show (1) that Nathan Hale would be unable to implement any component of the Student’s IEP or (2) that the Student requires a more restrictive setting than Nathan Hale’s neurodiverse classroom.

In sum, the record demonstrates that the Board developed an IEP reasonably calculated to enable the Student to make educational progress in light of her circumstances, appropriately addressed the Student’s safety and medical needs through the Individual Student Plan and seizure action plan, and offered an appropriate placement. Accordingly, the Board did not fail to offer the Student a FAPE for the 2025–2026 school year.

Final Decision and Order

  1. The Board did not fail to implement the Student’s medical directive. Accordingly, the Board did not deny the Student a FAPE pursuant to the June 14, 2024 PPT meeting/IEP for ESY 2024 or for the 2024–2025 school year.
  2. The Board did not fail to offer the Student a FAPE pursuant to the July 11, 2025 PPT meeting/IEP for the 2025–2026 school year.
  3. The Student’s educational placement at Nathan Hale is appropriate and constitutes the least restrictive environment for the Student.
  4. Based on the foregoing findings that the Board did not deny the Student a FAPE, it is unnecessary to reach the remaining issues concerning the Parent’s request for placement at an out-of-district, state-approved therapeutic day school, or any other remedy.

Notes

  1. To the extent that the findings of fact may be viewed as conclusions of law, they should be so considered, and vice versa. ↩
  2. The Parent reported at the September 16, 2024 PPT meeting that the Student has seizures at home while sleeping, but this was not provided in testimony at the hearing (Board Ex. 22). ↩
  3. The October 11, 2024 Individual Student Plan did have a 24 hour notice requirement for scheduling the observations (Board Ex. 25). ↩
  4. As will be discussed further herein, the Parent, in her post-hearing brief, seeks to expand the issues for consideration beyond the scope of the Hearing Officer’s August 19, 2025 Prehearing Conference Summary and Order and her request for a due process hearing. ↩
  5. See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-76h(c)(2), providing that both parties shall participate in a prehearing conference to resolve the issues in dispute, if possible, and narrow the scope of the issues. ↩
  6. Not only were the Student’s 2023 evaluation and IEP not placed at issue in the Parent’s due process complaint notice, there is no indication from testimony or documentary evidence of any inaccuracy regarding Student’s needs and abilities in the December 2023 IEP or subsequent IEPs. Indication in the IEP that a correction would be made to an evaluation report does not mean that the IEP is not accurate. Moreover, references to inaccuracies in the evaluation report at the hearing were not clearly identified. The Parent indicated a notation that the Student could dress herself was not correct, and “maybe” there was an inaccuracy regarding communication. The Parent could not recall “all of them” (Testimony, Parent). In sum, even if the Parent had not waived this claim, the facts as alleged do not indicate a denial of FAPE. ↩
  7. Even if the Parent had not waived this claim, the evidence does not support a finding that the Board’s brief delay in the Student’s start date constituted a denial of FAPE. Under the IDEA, a denial of FAPE is established only where a procedural or substantive deficiency “impede[s] the child’s right to a free appropriate public education, significantly impede[s] the parents’ opportunity to participate in the decision-making process, or cause[s] a deprivation of educational benefits.” The record reflects that the Parent provided the required registration form and additional information about the Student for the ESY Guidelines very close to the start date of the ESY program. The Parent (1) submitted the registration form on July 5, 2024; (2) sent an email on Sunday July 7th, with additional information about Student behaviors; and (3) in the July 7th email sought to schedule the Student’s first day on Wednesday July 10th. The Student’s start date was scheduled for Monday July 15th to allow time for staff training on the Student’s seizure action plan. On Thursday July 11th the Board notified the Parent that seizure training was completed (Findings of Fact, Nos. 3-7). Under these facts, the Board reasonably required time to ensure that staff received necessary training on the Student’s seizure action plan and the ESY Guidelines before safely implementing her IEP. This short period was directly related to legitimate safety considerations. Typically ESY forms are due March 1st of a school year, but in this case the Board put the ESY program in place for the Student with shorter notice than normal (Findings of Fact, No. 5). Furthermore, once the Board made the Student’s program available, the Student attended only the first three days of school, after which the Parent did not return her to the program (Findings of Fact, Nos. 1, 17). The Parent’s decision to discontinue attendance further undermines any claim that the brief delay deprived the student of meaningful educational benefit. ↩
  8. By email dated October 14, 2024, the Parent’s advocate requested that the Parent be permitted to observe the Student’s classroom the following day and on subsequent days. The Board responded that 24 hours’ notice was required and referenced the mediation agreement’s requirement that observations occur at a “mutually agreeable” time. The Parent alleges harm, asserting that the denial of the initial request resulted in a loss of educational opportunity “because the observation would have necessitated the Student’s attendance in school.” This assertion is unsupported; the record shows that although the Board approved observation on the subsequent requested days, the Parent chose not to send the Student to school and ultimately withdrew the Student on October 24, 2024 (Findings of Fact, Nos. 26-30). Accordingly, there is no basis for finding a denial of FAPE. ↩