Connecticut State Department of Education

Final Decision and Order Case Nos. 26-0290 and 26-0460 consolidated

July 31, 2026

Student v. Ridgefield Board of Education

Appearing on behalf of the Student:
Courtney Spencer, Esq.
Law Office of Courtney Spencer LLC
75 Berlin Road Suite 104
Cromwell, CT 0614

Appearing on behalf of the Board:
Linda Yoder, Esq.
Ian Saum, Esq.
Shipman and Goodwin LLP
One Constitution Plaza
Hartford, CT 06103

Appearing before:
Adrienne Lawston, Esq.
Hearing Officer

Final Decision And Order

Procedural History:

The Board filed a Request for Due Process Hearing pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (IDEA), by email on December 22, 2025, under Case No. 26-0290. The Parents received the Request for Hearing on December 22, 2025. The undersigned Hearing Officer was appointed on December 23, 2025. The forty-five (45)-day timeline for issuing the final decision commenced on December 23, 2025, establishing an initial mailing deadline of February 5, 2026. Upon the joint requests of the Parties, that deadline was subsequently extended to April 20, 2026.

On March 30, 2026, the Parents filed a Request for Due Process Hearing under Case No. 26-0460. On April 7, 2026, the Parents filed a Motion to Consolidate with Case No. 26-0290. The Motion to Consolidate was granted on April 9, 2026. The resolution period concluded on April 29, 2026, and the forty-five (45)-day decision timeline commenced on April 30, 2026, establishing a decision deadline of June 12, 2026.

At the April 14, 2026 prehearing conference, the Parties jointly requested an extension of the decision deadline to permit the hearing to proceed following the May 1, 2026 PPT meeting and to allow the Parents to file an amended complaint addressing the 2026-2027 school year based upon the outcome of that meeting. The Parties represented that the Student was participating in an agreed-upon interim placement and that no prejudice would result from the requested extension. The Hearing Officer granted the request and extended the decision deadline to July 10, 2026.

The Parents filed an Amended Complaint on May 11, 2026. On May 14, 2026, the Board filed a Motion to Dismiss one issue. A prehearing conference was held on May 18, 2026, during which the issues raised in the Amended Complaint were discussed and clarified. At that conference, the Board made an oral request to postpone the first scheduled hearing date of May 26, 2026, and was directed to submit the request in writing. On May 19, 2026, the Board filed its written request for postponement. On the same date, the Parents filed a Second Amended Complaint.

The Board's Motion to Dismiss was denied, and the Board's request to postpone the May 26, 2026 hearing date was granted.

As a result of the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, the resolution period concluded on June 18, 2026, and the deadline for mailing the final decision became July 31, 2026.

The due process hearing was conducted on June 15, June 16, June 24, and June 26, 2026. The Board presented testimony from the Assistant Superintendent of Special Services and the school psychologist. The Parents presented testimony from the Student's mother, a private clinical psychologist, and the private clinic's Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA).

On July 10, 2026, the Board submitted by email a written statement from one of its witnesses identifying a factual error in her hearing testimony after reviewing the transcript. Because the submission identified a discrete factual issue affecting the accuracy of the hearing record, the Hearing Officer afforded the Parties an opportunity to resolve the matter by stipulation. On July 15, 2026, the hearing record was reopened for the limited purpose of admitting the Parties' stipulation into evidence as Hearing Officer Exhibit 3.

In addition, it was determined following the hearing that the record contained duplicate exhibits identified by both Parties. At the Parent's request, and without objection from the Board, the duplicate exhibits were withdrawn from the record. Following admission of Hearing Officer Exhibit 3 and withdrawal of the duplicate exhibits, the evidentiary record was closed. These post-hearing matters are reflected in the Hearing Officer's July 15, 2026 Procedural Order Regarding Post-Hearing Issues.

Statement Of Jurisdiction:

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

Issues:

  1. Did the Board fail to provide or offer the Student a free appropriate public education ("FAPE") for the 2023-2024 (beginning May 19, 2024), 2024-2025, 2025-2026 (until mid-January 2026), and 2026-2027 school years, including Extended School Year ("ESY") services for the summers of 2024 and 2025?
    1. Did the Board fail to provide or offer the Student an appropriate program for the 2023-2024 (beginning May 19, 2024), 2024-2025, 2025-2026 (until mid-January 2026), and 2026-2027 school years, including ESY services for the summers of 2024 and 2025?
    2. Did the Board commit procedural violations; specifically, predetermination and denial of meaningful parental participation, in developing the Student’s educational program during the school years at issue? If so, did such violations result in a denial of FAPE?
  2. Did the Board fail to appropriately evaluate the student as it relates to conducting an FBA?1
  3. Is continuity of the Student's current Registered Behavior Technician (RBT) and BCBA services, including any necessary transition supports in the event of a provider change, required to provide the Student a FAPE while attending Easton Country Day School and, if so, what relief is appropriate?
  4. Are the Parents entitled to reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses for the psychological evaluation and consultation, ABA services, occupational therapy services, speech and language services, and psychiatric services as part of a compensatory education award for the period from May 19, 2024 through the 2025-2026 school year (until mid-January 2026)?

Summary:

The Hearing Officer concludes that the Board provided the Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) during the 2023-2024 school year beginning May 19, 2024 and did not deny the Student a FAPE by prospectively reducing supports for the beginning of the 2024-2025 school year. Beginning approximately January/February 2025, however, the Student's behavioral presentation materially changed. Although the Board ultimately recognized that additional behavioral assessment and intervention were necessary, it failed to timely develop and implement an adequate function-based behavioral program, including timely completion of a functional behavioral assessment ("FBA"). As a result, the Student entered the 2025-2026 school year without the function-based behavioral assessment and intervention the PPT had already determined were necessary, resulting in a denial of FAPE through January 19, 2026.

The Hearing Officer further concludes that the Parents were afforded meaningful participation in the PPT process, the Student's educational program and placement were not predetermined, and the Board's recommendation of an out-of-district placement did not violate the least restrictive environment requirements of the IDEA.

As equitable relief, the Hearing Officer awards compensatory educational services reasonably calculated to remedy, to the extent reasonably possible, the educational harm resulting from the Board's denial of FAPE. Under the unique facts presented in this matter, the structure of the compensatory education award reflects the individualized equitable relief necessary to accomplish that purpose.

Applicable Standards

The following legal principles govern the issues presented in this matter.

Burden of Proof

In a due process hearing, the Board bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Conn. Agencies Regs. § 10-76h-14.

FAPE

The FAPE mandated by federal law must include "special education and related services" tailored to meet the unique needs of a particular child and be "reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits" Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 207; Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 1998).

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. Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).

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. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E); 34 C.F.R. § 300.513(a); Winkelman v. Parma City School District, 127 S. Ct. 1994, 2001 (2007).

To meet its substantive obligation under the IDEA, a school must offer an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the childs’ circumstances. Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, 580 U.S. 386, 137 S. Ct. 988, 999 (2017). The Second Circuit has explained that 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. Mrs. B. v. Milford Board of Education, 103 F.3d 1114, 1120 (2d Cir. 1997).

Factors to be considered in determining whether an IEP is reasonably calculated to provide a meaningful educational benefit is whether the proposed program is individualized on the basis of the student's assessment and performance and whether it is administered in the least restrictive environment. 20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(5)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.114(a).

Discussion

The following discussion contains the Hearing Officer's findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to each issue presented for decision. All of the parties’ arguments and evidence have been thoroughly reviewed and considered by the Hearing Officer. References to certain exhibits and witness testimony are not meant to exclude other supported evidence in the record.

I. Background

The Student is eligible for special education and related services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) under the primary disability category of Autism (HO Ex. 2 at p. 7). The Student was initially identified as eligible for special education and related services while attending school in New York under the primary disability category of Other Health Impaired (HO Ex. 2 at p. 2; Parent Ex. 31 at p. 1).

The Student enrolled in Ridgefield before entering kindergarten for the 2023-2024 school year. When the Student enrolled, the Board reviewed his educational records, arranged for him to visit the school, and convened multiple PPT meetings to develop an IEP for his kindergarten year. (Parent Exs. 33-35). The Board was aware of the Student’s behavioral difficulties before he entered kindergarten. His New York records documented impulsivity, grabbing toys, running away, difficulty accepting direction, overstimulation by noise, biting other students, and a need for consistent supports throughout the day from adults to negotiate positive social interactions with peers, and to help him identify and use strategies for self-regulation. (Parent Exs. 26 at p. 2; 30 at p. 8; 31 at pp. 5, 7).

The Student is academically gifted, with an IQ in the 98th percentile. At the same time, he has complex educational needs arising from Autism and ADHD, combined type, and requires substantial supports to address those needs. His disabilities affect him across settings and impair his regulation, attention, flexibility, executive functioning, and ability to read social cues. He has significant sensory needs and becomes dysregulated easily (Board Exs. 78 at pp. 4, 5, 7, 12; 97 at p. 4; Tr. pp. 455-56; 719-20).

An October 2023 occupational therapy evaluation identified moderate difficulties in the areas of vision, hearing, touch, balance, and motion but made no recommendations (Parent Ex. 40 at pp. 3, 5). A February 2024 independent occupational therapy evaluation identified deficits in sensory processing, fine motor skills, and postural skills that contributed to difficulties with self-regulation and sustained participation. The evaluator recommended continuation of the Student’s OT services and implementation of a comprehensive sensory diet (Parent Ex. 2 at pp. 34-36).

II. The Board Provided the Student a FAPE for the 2023-2024 School Year Beginning May 19, 20242

A. The Student’s Kindergarten Program

The Student’s initial Ridgefield IEP was developed through PPT meetings held on July 31 and August 22, 2023 (Parent Exs. 33-35).

At the July 31, 2023 PPT meeting, the Parents requested a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) and a fifteen-minute check-in and check-out with the school psychologist at the beginning and end of the school day (Parent Ex. 33 at p. 3). At the August 22, 2023 PPT meeting, the Parents renewed those requests. The Board did not agree to conduct an FBA or provide the requested psychologist check-ins. (Parent Exs. 34 at p. 4; 35 at p. 2; 36-37).

In prior written notice dated August 22, 2023, the Board stated that the services in the proposed IEP would provide appropriate support for the Student (Parent Ex. 36). The Board also stated that an FBA was not warranted based upon the Student’s existing supports and the information contained in his New York IEP (Parent Ex. 37). The Board agreed to collect data and reconvene in about six weeks (Parent Exs. 36-37).

The August 22, 2023 IEP included a shared paraprofessional, BCBA consultation, and a check-in and check-out at the end of the school day with a paraprofessional or teacher. (Parent Exs 33 at 2; 34 at pp. 2, 13). The IEP indicated that the Student exhibited behaviors that impeded his learning or that of others and indicated that it would include goals and objectives to address the Student’s behavior (Parent Ex. 34 at p. 3). The Board therefore recognized that the Student presented with behavioral needs requiring special education planning, notwithstanding its determination that an FBA was not yet warranted.

At the October 11, 2023 PPT meeting, the Parents again expressed that they felt it was important to conduct an FBA within the first quarter of the school year. The PPT discontinued weekly parent email summaries and weekly school team meetings. They continued monthly meetings with analysis (Parent Ex. 46 at pp. 2, 4). The Student’s IEP indicated that the Student exhibited behaviors that impeded learning for self or others and that IEP goals and objectives would be developed to address the behavior (Parent Ex. 46 at p. 3).

At the March 13, 2024 PPT meeting, the Board removed one-to-one counseling and pull-out small-group counseling. Fifteen minute push-in sessions twice weekly were added (Board Exs. 63 at p. 2, 64 at pp. 1-2).

The March 13, 2024 IEP indicated that the Student exhibited behaviors that impeded his learning or that of others and that goals and objectives would be developed to address those behaviors. (Board Ex. 63 at p. 3).

The Student’s revised IEP dated April 4, 2024 indicated that the Student did not exhibit behaviors that impeded his learning or that of others. (Board Ex. 72 at p. 3).

At the June 11, 2024 PPT to conduct an annual review, the Student’s triennial reevaluations were reviewed (Board. Ex. 79-82). The PPT changed the Student’s primary disability classification from Other Health Impaired to Autism. (B-79 at pp. 1-2; B-84 at 1). The classification change is not disputed.

B. The Student Made Meaningful Progress During Kindergarten during the 2023-2024 school year beginning May 19, 2024.

The hearing record establishes that the Student adjusted to his new school and a mainstream educational environment with the assistance of special education supports and services, including the support of a shared or two-to-one paraprofessional.

The Progress Report on IEP Goals and Objectives dated December 15, 2023 reflects that by December the Student had mastered numerous objectives relating to emotional regulation and peer interactions (Parent Ex. 1).

The June 2024 annual review information reflected significant growth in academic, social, and behavioral areas, including improved flexibility, turn-taking, and independence with peers (Board Exs. 79, 82). The Student mastered each goal and objective contained in his 2023-2024 IEP and his report card showed progress (Board Exs. 87, 62).

The hearing record establishes that the Student made meaningful progress during the 2023-2024 school year beginning May 19, 2024.

C. The Failure to Conduct an FBA During Kindergarten Did Not Result in a Denial of FAPE

The Parents requested an FBA before the Student began kindergarten based upon information from his prior school identifying behaviors of concern. The Board declined the request but agreed to gather data, monitor the Student, and reconvene (Parent Exs. 35, 37).

Although the Student began the school year with identified behavioral needs, the Board provided behavioral supports and developed IEP goals and objectives intended to address those needs. The Student reportedly adjusted well to his new school, made meaningful progress, and mastered his IEP goals and objectives.

Under the circumstances existing during kindergarten, it was reasonable for the Board to collect data and determine whether the Student’s behavioral needs could be addressed through his IEP before conducting an FBA. Although the Parents reasonably advocated for an earlier assessment, the IDEA did not require the Board to conduct an FBA at that point because the evidence demonstrates that the Student's behavioral needs were being appropriately addressed through the behavioral supports and services then in place.

Based upon the hearing record, an FBA was not required to address the Student’s behaviors for the 2023-2024 school year beginning May 19, 2024.

D. Extended School Year Services for Summer 2024

The Board did not offer ESY services for summer 2024. The hearing record does not establish that the Parents objected to that determination or requested ESY services. In light of the Student’s documented progress in emotional regulation and peer interaction, the Board’s determination that ESY services were not required did not deny the Student a FAPE

III. The 2024-2025 School Year

A. The June 2024 PPT Reduced the Student’s Supports for First Grade

The PPT convened on June 11, 2024 for the Student’s annual review and changed his primary disability classification to Autism. (Board Ex. 79).3

For the upcoming first-grade year, the June PPT changes included removal of paraprofessional support, direct occupational therapy services, and executive-functioning instruction. Unlike the Student’s prior year, the PPT did not include provision for BCBA consultation. The Board also denied ESY services for Summer 2025. (Board Exs. 79 at pp. 2, 82, 85). The triennial evaluation reflected teacher concerns regarding clinically significant hyperactivity, at-risk attention problems, and significant social concerns. (Board Ex. 78 at pp. 4, 5, 7, 12, 15).

The June 11, 2024 IEP indicated that the Student did not exhibit behaviors that impeded his learning or that of others. (Board Ex. 79 at p. 3).

In prior written notice dated June 17, 2024, the Board declined the Parents’ request for continued paraeducator support. (Board Ex. 85). The Board also declined the Parents request for an executive functioning goal (Board Ex. 86).

The Parents strongly disagreed with the removal of paraprofessional support. The PPT informed them that the issue could be revisited in October but explained that the goal was to foster the Student’s independence. (Board Ex. 82 at p. 3).

The Student’s success during kindergarten was not an unreasonable basis for the PPT to consider reducing certain supports. The reductions therefore did not deny the Student a FAPE at the outset of first grade. The Student's progress during kindergarten, however, did not relieve the Board of its continuing obligation to monitor the Student's educational functioning and to timely modify his program if his educational needs materially changed after those supports were removed.

B. The Student Experienced Increasing Difficulty During First Grade

The October 30, 2024 IEP indicated that the Student did not exhibit behaviors that impeded his learning or that of others (Board Ex. 90 at p. 2). At that meeting, the Parents sought an FBA in part to define and better understand the Student’s dysregulation (Board Ex. 90 at p. 3). The Board declined the request explaining that an FBA was not needed because they knew the function of the behavior, but they agreed to gather behavioral data and continue strategies addressing flexibility, social skills, and sensory needs (Board Ex. 91). The Parents also requested increased counseling, an ADHD evaluation, increased data collection, and additional goals and objectives. The PPT increased the school psychologist push-in to 30 minutes per week, added an additional objective under perspective taking goal and a new goal around flexibility, but the other requests were denied (Board Ex. 90 at pp. 1-3).

The Student initially experienced difficulty adjusting to first grade. The Student experienced school refusal for more than one month. The Student displayed impulsivity “across the board” all year long (Board Ex. 16 at p. 2; Tr. pp. 410-411). As the school year progressed, however, both the frequency and severity of his behaviors increased (Board Ex. 91 at p. 1; Tr. pp. 495-96).

On January 16, 2025, the Student’s teacher reported a “large increase” in the frequency and intensity of behaviors throughout the school day to the Parents. The reported behaviors included touching others, refusing nonpreferred directions, spinning across the floor, poking peers with pencils, throwing items, and kicking another student (Parent Ex. 52 at p. 1). The record indicates the Student’s first act of physical aggression occurred when he kicked another student on January 15, 2026. The record doesn’t show when this large increase in frequency and intensity began (Parent Ex. 52 at p. 1). The hearing record further shows that the Student experienced two months of a “setback in performance.” The exact two months is not clear, but appears to be somewhere in the area of February/March of 2025 and is consistent in terms of timeline with the recognition of the Student’s teacher in January 2025 of a “large increase” in frequency and intensity of behaviors (Board Ex. 16 at p. 2; Tr. pp. 194-196; 842-843).

Despite the above information, the Student’s March 12, 2025 IEP continued to indicate that the Student did not exhibit behaviors that impeded his learning or that of others (Board Ex. 101 at p. 3). At the March 12, 2025 PPT meeting, the Parents requested additional counseling, occupational therapy, special education support for executive functioning, proactive support for impulsivity, and an eye-gaze goal. The PPT declined those requests (Board Exs. 101 at p. 4, 108 at p. 2). The Parent also provided information regarding the Student’s functioning based upon what the Student had reported and her perceptions of how his classmates viewed him (Board Ex. 101 at p. 4).

Approximately two weeks later, near the end of March 2025, the Student’s second act of aggression occurred when he pushed a teacher and peers and eloped from the classroom (Tr. pp. 529-30).

C. The Board's Obligations Changed When the Student's Presentation Changed

The IDEA requires an IEP team to consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports and other strategies when a student's behavior impedes the student's learning or that of others. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(3)(B)(i).

The failure to conduct an adequate FBA is a serious procedural violation when it prevents the PPT from obtaining information necessary to understand and address a student's behaviors. R.E. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, 190 (2d Cir. 2012); L.O. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 822 F.3d 95, 113 (2d Cir. 2016). A failure to conduct an FBA does not deny a student a FAPE if the IEP adequately identifies the problem behaviors and prescribes appropriate strategies to manage them. R.E., 694 F.3d at 190.

The Board reasonably declined to conduct an FBA at the beginning of kindergarten and did not deny the Student a FAPE by declining the Parents' renewed request in October 2024. By early 2025, however, the circumstances had materially changed. The Board's obligations changed as well. Once the Student's behavioral presentation materially changed, the Board was required to reassess whether the behavioral supports then in place remained sufficient to provide the Student a FAPE.

By January 2025, the Student's teacher was reporting a substantial increase in the frequency and intensity of disruptive and unsafe behaviors (Parent Ex. 52 at 1). The Student's first act of aggression occurred in January, and he then experienced an approximately two-month setback in functioning during the approximate time period of February and March 2025 (Board Ex. 16 at p. 2; Tr. pp. 195-196, 842-843). He subsequently engaged in aggression toward peers and a teacher and eloped from the classroom. (Tr. pp. 529-30).

Despite this escalation, the March 12, 2025 IEP continued to state that the Student's behaviors did not impede his learning or that of others (Board Ex. 101 at p. 3). The IEP therefore failed to accurately describe the Student's educational needs as they then existed. The Student's March 2025 IEP did not identify the problem behaviors that had been occurring since January 2025, and did not prescribe appropriate strategies to manage them (Board Ex. 101). Although the PPT made certain revisions, including certain goals, objectives, accommodations, and consultation services, those revisions were not an adequate substitute for a behavioral program that identified and systematically addressed the behaviors that had emerged during first grade. The March 2025 PPT denied Parent requests for additional counseling time, additional OT support and goals to target executive functioning, special education support and goals to target executive functioning and additional proactive support for impulsivity (Board Ex. 102). The PPT added an accommodation for the use of declarative language; access to a quiet space; 30 minute monthly school psychologist consult; 30 minute monthly speech language pathologist consult; and 30 minute monthly parent meetings (Board Ex. 101 at p. 1)

Although the Board ultimately recognized that additional behavioral assessment and intervention were necessary by proposing an FBA in May 2025, the issue is not simply when the assessment was proposed. Rather, the question is whether the Board timely responded to the Student's escalating behavioral needs through an appropriate behavioral program. The hearing record establishes that it did not.

D. The May and June 2025 PPT Meetings

The PPT convened on May 13, 2025 for the Student's annual review (Board Ex. 7). By that time, the Student's IEP indicated that his behaviors impeded his learning or that of others. The IEP stated that goals and objectives would be developed to address the behavior and proposed an FBA (Board Ex. 7 at p. 3).

After discussion, the PPT proposed an IEP that included shared paraprofessional support and an FBA (HO Ex. 2; Board Ex. 7). The record reflects that additional supports were recommended because the Student had begun exhibiting impulsivity and difficulty participating in small-group and whole-group tasks when tasks or expected methods were nonpreferred (Tr. pp. 89-90).

The PPT reconvened on June 2, 2025 to continue reviewing and revising the Student's IEP, including goals and objectives, progress monitoring, occupational therapy services, paraprofessional support, and the FBA process (Board Exs. 18, 22). The Board agreed to the Parents' request that an outside BCBA conduct the FBA (Board Ex. 22; Tr. p. 90).

The June 2, 2025 IEP also indicated that the Student exhibited behaviors that impeded his learning or that of others and that goals and objectives would be developed to address those behaviors (Board Ex.18 at p. 3). The Student’s IEP, however, does not sufficiently identify the problem behaviors that had been identified since January 2025, and does not prescribe appropriate strategies to manage them (Board Ex. 18).

The Board asserts that the FBA could not begin immediately because the school year was ending and it had agreed to locate an outside behavioral services provider with whom it had recent experience (Board Ex. 13 at p. 3; Tr. pp. 90-91). The hearing record does not establish that the use of an outside BCBA rendered it impossible to begin the assessment during the remaining portion of first grade or otherwise justified delaying it until the following school year. There was no evidence that the Board contacted the provider to determine whether the assessment could be prioritized and no explanation as to why observations could not have begun during May or June. As a result, the Student completed first grade and entered second grade without the function-based assessment and behavioral plan that the PPT had already determined were necessary.

Although the PPT discussed information contributed by multiple staff members regarding the Student's behavior, those discussions did not substitute for an adequately developed, function-based behavioral program. The hearing record reflects differing observations and differing approaches among staff, but the PPT did not translate that information into a consistent, function-based behavioral plan addressing the behaviors that had emerged during the latter half of first grade (Board Exs.13, 22). As a result, the Student entered second grade without a coherent behavioral program despite the Board's recognition that one was needed.

The Board's failure to timely conduct the FBA constituted a procedural violation of the IDEA. Under the facts of this case, that violation was not merely technical. It resulted in the Student continuing without an adequate function-based behavioral program while his behaviors progressively escalated. As those behaviors intensified, they increasingly interfered with the Student's ability to access instruction, participate in classroom activities, and receive educational benefit. Ultimately, the educational consequences extended beyond lost instructional access and culminated in the Student's inability to remain in his educational placement.

E. Conclusion Regarding the 2024-2025 School Year

The Board's original decision to reduce paraprofessional and other supports was based upon the Student's meaningful progress during kindergarten. Viewed prospectively and based upon the information available to the June 2024 PPT, that decision did not deny the Student a FAPE at the beginning of first grade.

The IDEA does not require a school district to anticipate every future educational need. It does require the PPT to respond appropriately when a student's educational needs materially change.

Here, the Board's original educational judgments were not unreasonable when made. The denial of FAPE resulted because, after the Student's presentation changed significantly during first grade, the Board failed to modify its behavioral programming in a timely and appropriate manner.

By approximately February 2025, the Board had sufficient information to know that the Student's behaviors were impeding his access to instruction and that a more systematic behavioral assessment and intervention were required.

The Board failed to timely modify the Student's behavioral programming in response to his materially changed educational needs. That broader failure included the delayed completion of the FBA, but was not limited to it. The Student's IEP failed to sufficiently identify his escalating behaviors and prescribe effective function-based strategies to address them. For these reasons, the Board's failure to timely modify the Student's behavioral programming, including its untimely completion of the FBA, denied the Student a FAPE beginning approximately February 2025

F. Extended School Year Services for Summer 2025

Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.106, extended school year ("ESY") services must be provided when the PPT determines they are necessary for the provision of a FAPE. The Student's June 2025 IEP provided for itinerant ESY services focusing on social skills. The total ESY program consisted of four hours. (Board Ex.18 at p. 18).

Although the Parent did not object to the four-hour ESY program, the hearing record establishes, based upon the facts surrounding the Student's first-grade year, that this limited program failed to address the Student's unique behavioral and social needs. By May and June 2025, the PPT had already recognized that the Student's behavioral needs had changed significantly and that additional behavioral assessment and intervention were necessary.

The summer of 2025 presented an opportunity for the Board to begin addressing those identified needs before the Student returned for second grade. Instead, the Student entered the 2025-2026 school year without having been offered the behavioral assessment and intervention the PPT had already determined were necessary. Under those circumstances, an ESY program consisting of only four hours of itinerant social-skills services was not reasonably calculated to address the Student's demonstrated behavioral and social needs. The inadequacy of the ESY program further demonstrates the Board's continuing failure to timely modify the Student's behavioral programming after recognizing that substantially increased behavioral assessment and intervention had become necessary.

IV. The 2025-2026 School Year

By the end of first grade, the Board had recognized that the Student required an FBA, paraprofessional support, and additional behavioral intervention. Nevertheless, the FBA was not initiated until September 17, 2025 and was not completed until October 27, 2025 (Board Ex. 29). The Behavior Intervention Plan was not created until November 5, 2025 (Board Ex. 37). The Student therefore began second grade without the benefit of the completed FBA or behavioral program informed by that assessment.

During the beginning of second grade, the Student’s behavior continued to escalate. Initially, there were protests, and refusals and several elopements in September. The Student’s behavior developed into frequent instances of aggression beginning early October. The Student’s behavior included eloping, barricading staff in and out of rooms, destroying property, kicking, biting, spitting in faces, pulling hair, throwing objects, and taking over the Smart Board. He physically injured staff in one incident. Regarding his assigned paraprofessional, his conduct included punching her, kicking her, chasing her down the hallway, and barricading her in and out of rooms. In one instance the students had to be evacuated from the classroom and their bodies shielded from the Student (Board Exs. 24-40; Tr. pp. 101, 211-212, 218-219).

The Board had created a safety plan for elopement but none for aggression, despite having seen two instances of aggression the prior year (Tr. p. 96-97). The Board’s response to the Student’s behaviors included various accommodations such as changing breaks, incentives, social stories, and minimizing group work, none of which were effective. They tried pulling the Student out of class, and they tried a “weight-based system that included him to self-identify” (Tr. pp. 96-97, 375; Board Exs. 28 at p.3; 30 at p. 5).

The Parents had requested an immediate plan and daily BCBA oversight on October 23, 2025 as the result of an incident, which was denied. The Board suspended the Student for a day. They told the Parents to wait for the FBA (Board Ex. 28; Tr. p. 552-56).

Although the Assistant Superintendent of Special Services testified that the school psychologist was heavily involved in his program, supporting and responding (Tr. p. 284-85), the school psychologist testified that she never saw him when he was aggressive in second grade and didn’t know about the Student’s regression in first grade (Tr. pp. 375-76; 411).

At the November 21, 2025 PPT the Assistant Superintendent of Special Services recommended outplacement for the Student. That was after the BIP had been in place for only two weeks. (Board Exs. 42, 44; Tr. pp. 219, 286; 563). The November 21, 2025 IEP stated that the Student needed to improve his ability to attend to tasks and limit impulsivity in order to complete academic tasks successfully throughout the school day. The IEP identified difficulties with attention, impulse control, self-regulation, flexibility, transitions, shifting, unexpected changes, and visual referencing. Those needs affected his ability to follow directions and routines, participate in group tasks, and complete activities. (Board Ex. 42 at p. 4).

Although the Parents initially wanted the placement in public school for the Student and suggested additional supports, the Parents ended up agreeing to the Board’s request to outplace him and to attend ECDS. (Tr. pp. 573-74).

In the meantime, there was an interim agreement in which the Student began attending the Student’s clinic for educational and behavioral services beginning January 19, 2026. (Tr. p. 677).

The Board's delay was consequential. The Student entered second grade without the function-based behavioral assessment and plan that the Board had already determined were necessary, and his behaviors increased in frequency, intensity, and aggressiveness before the assessment and plan were completed.

The events following completion of the FBA further illustrate why the delay was consequential. Despite the Board's earlier position that an FBA was unnecessary, the completed assessment was quickly followed by a recommendation for an out-of-district placement. Had the assessment been conducted when the Student's behaviors began escalating and the Parents repeatedly requested one, the information and behavioral planning it provided could have informed the PPT's decision-making substantially earlier and may have significantly altered the trajectory of the Student's second-grade program.

The failure to timely address the Student's escalating behavioral needs by implementing an adequate function-based behavioral program, including the delayed completion of the FBA, denied the Student a FAPE during the beginning of the 2025-2026 School Year. The Parents agreed that FAPE is not at issue from January 19, 2026 through summer 2026. The period of denial therefore ends January 19, 2026.

V. The Board Offered the Student a FAPE for the 2026-2027 School Year

A. The Proposed Program

Through an IEP developed on May 1, 2026, the Board recommended that the Student attend Easton Country Day School ("ECDS") beginning in September 2026 (Board Exs. 119-120). The IEP provides for behavioral supports, including a full-time one-to-one RBT and six hours per week of BCBA consultation. (Board Ex. 119 at pp. 11-12). The Student’s IEP indicates that the Student exhibits behaviors that impede learning for self or others, that IEP goals and objectives will be developed to address the behavior and that a behavioral intervention plan based on an FBA has been developed (Board Ex. 119 at p. 3). The Student’s IEP does not provide for a transition plan for going from the Student’s interim clinic placement to ECDS (Board Ex. 119). The May 1, 2026 PPT discussed transition planning (Board Ex. 120).

The Parents do not challenge the appropriateness of ECDS. Rather, they contend that the behavioral services required by the IEP must be provided through the Student's current private behavioral clinic.

B. The Parents' Position

The Parents contend that the Student's behavioral services required by the IEP, specifically the BCBA and Behavior Technician, should continue to be provided by the private behavioral clinic where the Student currently attends. They argue that the Student made substantial gains after beginning services through the clinic in January 2026 and that changing providers would jeopardize those gains.

The Parents further maintain that the clinic employs a unique methodology that is integral to the Student's progress. The Clinical psychologist who heads the clinic testified that her clinic combines psychological and behavioral programming through an integrated model emphasizing social relatedness, executive functioning, declarative language, and coordinated intervention by psychologists, BCBAs, and behavior technicians (Parent Ex. 48; Tr. pp. 712-717). Staff receive extensive training in that model and are supervised by her and the clinic's BCBAs (Tr. pp. 738-740).

When the Student began receiving services through the clinic in January 2026, he initially presented in a constant state of dysregulation and required three and a half months before returning to baseline functioning (Tr. pp. 720-721). The Parents argue that introducing a new provider would disrupt the Student's progress and require him to rebuild relationships and behavioral programming already established through the clinic.

The Parents also argue that Board’s behavioral services provider lacks sufficient staffing to reliably implement the required services based primarily upon testimony that another student attending ECDS had not received behavioral services because of staffing limitations.

C. The Board's Position

The Board agrees that the Student requires intensive behavioral supports at ECDS but disagrees that the IDEA requires those services to be provided by a particular clinic or individual provider.

The Assistant Superintendent of Special Services testified that she gathered information from both the Student's private clinic and the Board’s selected behavioral services provider before making recommendations. She discussed with the private clinical psychologist the clinic's proposed services, staffing, and ability to provide ongoing school-based supports. (Board Ex. 137; Tr. 125-129; 819-820). She likewise contacted the Board’s behavioral services provider regarding its ability to provide the behavioral services required by the IEP. The Board’s provider represented that it could provide both a BCBA and an RBT for the Student. (Board Ex. 125; Tr. 126-128).

The evidence further establishes that the Board’s provider has extensive experience providing autism services and has maintained a long-standing relationship with ECDS. The Board’s provider staff are familiar with the ECDS program, personnel, and student population, and the Board has previously utilized the provider (Board Ex. 128; Tr. pp. 126-127).

D. Analysis

The issue presented is not whether the Student has benefited from services provided by the private clinic. The hearing record strongly supports the conclusion that he has benefited. Nor is the issue whether the Parents reasonably prefer the clinic's methodology or personnel.

Rather, the question is whether the IDEA requires the Board to identify a particular private clinic or specific providers in the Student's IEP in order to offer a FAPE.

The IDEA requires school districts to provide appropriate special education and related services through qualified personnel. It generally does not entitle parents to dictate the identity of service providers. Likewise, challenges to a proposed placement cannot rest upon speculation that a district will fail to implement the IEP as written. R.E. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, 195 (2d Cir. 2012); M.O. v. New York City Department of Education, 793 F.3d 236, 244 (2d Cir. 2015).

The Parents have not established that the Board’s provider is factually incapable of implementing the behavioral services required by the Student's IEP. Although the Parents rely upon evidence suggesting staffing challenges affecting another student, that evidence is insufficient to establish that the Board’s provider cannot provide the services required for this Student. The Board represented that qualified personnel would be provided, and the Board’s provider confirmed its ability to provide both BCBA consultation and one-to-one RBT services. (Board Ex. 125; Tr. pp. 126-128).

The Parents also rely heavily upon the private clinical psychologist’s testimony regarding her clinic's integrated methodology. The hearing record demonstrates that the methods employed at the clinic have been beneficial for the Student. However, the evidence does not establish that the Student requires the specific methods, services and support of this clinic such that a BCBA or Behavioral Technician (BT) trained by this clinic must be employed for the Student to receive meaningful educational benefit. Accordingly, this matter is distinguishable from cases in which the evaluative record establishes that a particular methodology is itself educationally necessary.

E. Continuity of Services

The Parents further contend that changing behavioral providers at this time would jeopardize the Student's progress. The hearing record supports the conclusion that the Student has made meaningful behavioral progress through the individualized behavioral programming developed at the clinic following the Board's denial of FAPE. The evidence further establishes that the clinic's providers possess an individualized understanding of the Student's behavioral presentation developed through months of assessment, observation, and adjustment. These facts, however, do not establish that the Board was required to designate the clinic in the Student's IEP in order to offer a FAPE. Rather, they become relevant in determining the appropriate scope and structure of the compensatory education award discussed below.

F. Conclusion

For these reasons, the hearing record does not establish that the Board was required to designate the Student's private clinic or its personnel as the providers of behavioral services contained in the IEP in order to offer the Student a FAPE for the 2026-2027 school year. The Board's proposed IEP was reasonably calculated to enable the Student to receive educational benefit.

In sum, the Board did not deny the Student a FAPE by declining to conduct an FBA during kindergarten or October 2024, nor by prospectively reducing supports at the beginning of first grade. The denial of FAPE arose only after the Student's educational needs materially changed and the Board failed to timely revise its behavioral programming to address those changes. That failure culminated in the Student entering second grade without the function-based assessment and behavioral intervention plan that the PPT had already determined were necessary. The remaining issues concern whether the Board's actions also resulted in procedural violations of the IDEA.

VI. The Parents Were Not Denied Meaningful Participation

The IDEA affords parents the right to participate meaningfully in decisions regarding the identification, evaluation, educational placement of their child, and the provision of a free appropriate public education. 34 C.F.R. § 300.501(b)(1); Conn. Agencies Regs. § 10-76d-12(a). Although parents must be afforded a meaningful opportunity to participate in educational decision-making, the IDEA does not require a school district to adopt every parental recommendation or proposal. See T.P. v. Mamaroneck Union Free Sch. Dist., 554 F.3d 247, 253-54 (2d Cir. 2009); Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192-93 (2d Cir. 2005).

The record establishes that the Parents received notice of PPT meetings, information regarding their procedural safeguards and mediation rights, progress monitoring reports, evaluations, data considered by the PPT, and prior written notice of the Board's decisions (Board Exs. 6; 15; 39; 88; 96; 99, 110). The Parents actively participated in the PPT process. They attended PPT meetings, expressed their concerns regarding the Student's educational and behavioral needs, and submitted written statements for the PPT's consideration. Those concerns were presented to and discussed by the PPT (Tr. pp. 63-64, 601- 604, 607). In addition to the PPT meetings, Board staff communicated with the Parents through monthly parent meetings, telephone calls, and email concerning the Student's programming and progress (Tr. pp. 63-64, 185, 645).

The Parents consistently advocated for the Student throughout the relevant period, repeatedly expressing concerns regarding the Student's behavioral needs. As discussed elsewhere in this Decision, concerns regarding the need to evaluate the Student's behavioral needs and to develop an appropriate behavioral program ultimately proved well-founded. Nevertheless, the IDEA does not require a school district to agree with parents or adopt their preferred recommendations.

Rather, it requires that parents be afforded a meaningful opportunity to participate in the decision-making process.

The Hearing Officer's findings that the Board denied the Student a FAPE by failing to timely conduct an FBA and by failing to develop an appropriate behavioral program do not compel a different conclusion. The Board's IDEA violations arose from the educational decisions it made and did not make regarding how to address the Student's escalating behavioral needs, not from excluding the Parents from the decision-making process. The evidence establishes that the Parents were afforded a meaningful opportunity to participate in the PPT process, even though the PPT rejected some of their recommendations.

Accordingly, although the Board made educational decisions that denied the Student a FAPE, the evidence does not establish that those decisions resulted from excluding the Parents from the decision-making process or from failing to afford the Parents a meaningful opportunity to participate. The Board has therefore met its burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Parents were afforded meaningful participation under the IDEA.

VII. The Board Did Not Predetermine the Student's Program or Placement

Predetermination occurs when a school district arrives at a PPT meeting having already decided a student's educational program or placement and refuses to consider parental input. Although a school district may develop proposals or preferences before a PPT meeting, the IDEA requires that those proposals remain subject to discussion and consideration during the PPT process. See T.P. v. Mamaroneck Union Free Sch. Dist., 554 F.3d 247, 253-54 (2d Cir. 2009).

The record reflects an ongoing decision-making process rather than a predetermined outcome. Throughout the relevant period, the PPT considered the Parents' concerns, discussed available options, gathered additional information, and explained the basis for its recommendations concerning the Student's supports and services. (Board Exs. 13, 22, 44, 108, 120).

Likewise, although the Hearing Officer concludes elsewhere in this Decision that the Board's educational decisions regarding the Student's behavioral assessment and behavioral program ultimately denied the Student a FAPE, the evidence does not establish that those decisions were predetermined before the PPT meetings occurred or that the Board refused to consider parental input. The issue is not whether the Board reached the correct educational conclusions, but whether it reached those conclusions through a process that remained open to parental participation.

The record does not demonstrate that the Board entered the PPT meetings with a closed mind or refused to consider the Parents' input. Rather, it demonstrates that the Board considered the Parents' requests, obtained additional information, discussed competing recommendations, and explained the basis for its decisions. Accordingly, the Board has met its burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Student's educational program and placement were not predetermined.

VIII. Least Restrictive Environment

The Board must 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).

Although the Parent agrees with the ECDS placement and that it is the Student’s least restrictive environment at this time, the Parent contends that, before the Board recommended an out-of-district placement in November 2025, the Board failed to adequately consider whether additional supplementary aids and services, such as BCBA support and the services of a registered behavior technician, or pull-outs would have enabled the Student to remain appropriately educated within the Ridgefield Public Schools. The hearing record, however, does not support a finding that the Board's recommendation of an out-of-district placement in November 2025 violated the IDEA's least restrictive environment requirement.

The evidence establishes that, by November 2025, the Student's behavioral needs had escalated to the point where the Board could no longer provide an appropriate educational program within its public school setting. The Assistant Superintendent of Special Services testified that the Board was unable to accommodate the Student's needs within the regular education environment and that, given the Student's exceptionally high cognitive abilities, it did not have an appropriate peer group for a more restrictive setting. The record contains no persuasive evidence that during the time period around November 2025, that the Student could have been satisfactorily educated with additional supplementary aids and services within the Ridgefield public school (Tr. pp. 95-100, 264-266, 311- 314).

Consistent with Connecticut Public Act 25-67, the Hearing Officer finds that: (1) the District had attempted to educate the Student in the regular education environment with supplementary aids and services (2) by November 2025, the educational benefits available through continued in-district programming were outweighed by the benefits of a more specialized educational setting capable of addressing the Student's behavioral and educational needs; (3) the record establishes that the Board considered the possible negative effects on the provision of education to other students in a classroom if the child was included and (4) the Student’s recommended program includes him with nondisabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate (See Board Ex. 119 at pp. 15-16)

IX. Equitable Relief

A. Compensatory Education

Compensatory education is an equitable remedy, reasonably calculated to provide the educational benefits that likely would have accrued from special education services that the Board should have provided in order for the Student to receive a FAPE. See Doe v. East Lyme Board of Education, 790 F.3d 440, 456–57 (2d Cir. 2015); Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 518, 522–24 (D.C. Cir. 2005). The authority to award compensatory education derives from the broad discretion afforded courts and hearing officers to grant relief appropriate under the IDEA. See Burlington v. Department of Education, 471 U.S. 359, 369–70 (1985); Reid, 401 F.3d at 522–23.

A compensatory education award is not punitive and is not intended to provide damages for past wrongdoing. It provides educational services prospectively to remedy the educational consequences of a past denial of FAPE. Reid, 401 F.3d at 522–23. The remedy therefore must be individualized and based upon the Student’s particular needs and the educational harm resulting from the denial of FAPE. Id. at 524. It is not determined through a mechanical hour-for-hour calculation of services missed. Instead, the award must be reasonably calculated to provide the educational benefits that likely would have accrued had the appropriate services been provided in the first instance. Doe, 790 F.3d at 457; Reid, 401 F.3d at 524.

The equitable nature of compensatory education requires consideration not only of the services the Student should have received, but also of the Student’s present educational circumstances and the manner in which the remedy should address the consequences of the denial of FAPE. The award must be tailored to the Student rather than derived from a predetermined formula, and may differ from the services that were omitted if a different or additional form of relief is necessary to remedy the resulting educational deprivation. See Reid, 401 F.3d at 523–24.

Application to the Student

As determined above, the Board denied the Student a FAPE during ESY Summer 2025 by failing to provide an appropriate program addressing the Student's increasing social-emotional needs that had become evident during the latter half of first grade (2024-2025). In addition, the Board denied the Student a FAPE from approximately February 2025 through mid-January 2026 by failing to provide appropriate behavioral interventions and supports, including failing to timely conduct an FBA. During this period, the Student's behaviors escalated substantially. By November 2025, those behaviors had become sufficiently severe and dangerous that the Student could no longer remain in his educational placement, and the Board recommended an out-of-district placement. The Board and the Parent thereafter agreed that the Student would attend the private clinic and receive educational instruction there as an interim placement until an appropriate school placement could be identified and implemented.

The Student's placement at the clinic therefore was not an independent parental decision unrelated to the denial of FAPE. Rather, it arose directly from the educational circumstances created by the Board's failure to timely assess and appropriately address the Student's escalating behavioral needs.

Since January 19, 2026, the Student has received educational and behavioral services at the clinic and has made meaningful progress through behavioral programming developed and supervised by the clinic's psychologist and BCBA. When the Student entered the clinic on January 19, 2026, he presented, according to the clinical psychologist, in a constant state of dysregulation and required approximately three and a half months of intensive intervention before returning to baseline functioning. (Tr. pp. 590, 720-21). Thereafter, the Student demonstrated significant improvement in behavioral regulation, flexibility, and participation. As discussed above, the evidence further establishes that the Student's behavioral presentation is complex and requires ongoing analysis of antecedents, continual assessment, flexibility in behavioral intervention, and modification of behavioral strategies in response to the Student's individual needs. Through months of observation, assessment, and adjustment, the clinic's BCBA has developed an individualized understanding of the Student's behavioral presentation, the antecedents to his behaviors, his response to intervention, and the behavioral programming developed for the Student, with which the Student has become familiar and under which he has made meaningful progress. The Student will now enter ECDS, a school he has never attended, following an extended absence from a traditional school environment.

The Hearing Officer recognizes that, in the ordinary course, implementation of a student's IEP, including the selection of qualified personnel to deliver IEP services, rests with the Board.

Nothing in this Decision should be construed as concluding that parents generally possess the right to require IEP services through providers of their choosing or to require a particular behavioral methodology. The issue presented here, however, concerns the form of an individualized compensatory education award fashioned to remedy the educational consequences of the Board's denial of FAPE under the unique circumstances presented by this record. Under those circumstances, the provider is relevant because the equitable remedy must be reasonably calculated to address this Student's particular educational harm.

Because compensatory education must be individualized, the Hearing Officer must fashion an equitable remedy reasonably calculated to address the educational consequences of this Student's denial of FAPE. Here, the evidence establishes that the clinic's psychologist and BCBA have developed and implemented individualized behavioral programming under which the Student has made meaningful progress. Under the unique circumstances presented by this record, requiring the compensatory education services to be delivered through the Student's clinic is reasonably calculated to remedy the educational consequences of the Board's denial of FAPE.

The Student's upcoming entry into ECDS forms part of his present educational circumstances that the Hearing Officer may consider in fashioning equitable relief. It is not, standing alone, the basis for the compensatory education award. Rather, because the Board's denial of FAPE resulted in the educational circumstances now facing the Student, including his extended absence from a traditional school environment and his upcoming entry into a new educational setting, the Hearing Officer concludes that requiring the compensatory education services to be delivered through the clinic during that period is reasonably calculated to remedy the educational consequences of the Board's denial of FAPE while maintaining continuity in the individualized behavioral programming developed for the Student.

Accordingly, the Hearing Officer concludes that requiring the awarded compensatory education services to be delivered through the clinic constitutes an individualized equitable remedy reasonably calculated to provide the educational benefits the Student likely would have received absent the Board's denial of FAPE.

As a compensatory education award, the Board shall fund 360 minutes (6 hours) per week4 of BCBA services for the Student for the time period of August 1, 2026 through July 31, 2027; and 34.17 hours per week5 of 1:1 BT services for the time period of August 1, 2026 through July 31, 2027 to be provided through Student’s clinic for the purpose of supporting the Student's adjustment to the new educational setting, implementing and modifying behavioral programming, consultation, direct intervention, and data collection and review.6 These compensatory services shall be provided in addition to the services required by the Student's current IEP, except that the Board shall not be required to provide additional BCBA or RB/RBT services during the period in which those same services are being delivered through the compensatory education award. If, following completion of the compensatory education award, the Board utilizes different behavioral providers to provide BCBA and BT/RBT services, it shall ensure a transition period of not less than three months. Any transition plan shall include coordination between the existing and successor providers sufficient to minimize disruption of the Student's individualized behavioral programming and the educational gains achieved during the compensatory period.

B. Reimbursement

The Parent frames her request for reimbursement as a compensatory education claim. The analysis below applies whether or not the Parents’ claims for reimbursement for services for their child were to be considered compensatory education or reimbursement.

The Parents seek reimbursement for the costs of a privately obtained psychological consultation report, ABA services, occupational therapy services, and speech and language therapy services. Although the Parents’ Amended Due Process Complaint also requested reimbursement for psychiatric services, no claim for reimbursement of psychiatric services was presented at hearing.

With respect to the psychological consultation report dated January 31, 2025, the Parents seek reimbursement in the amount of $1,800 (Board Ex. 97). The evidence establishes that the report was obtained for the purpose of securing a medical diagnosis needed for insurance coverage. (Board Ex. 97). The evidence does not establish that the report was obtained to address the denial of FAPE found in this Decision. Rather, prior to the evaluation, the Board had completed a triennial evaluation and determined that autism was the Student’s primary educational disability. (Board Exs. 79, 83). Accordingly, reimbursement for the cost of the psychological consultation report is denied.

The Parents also seek reimbursement in the amounts of $4,106 for privately obtained speech and language services from August 2025 through October 2025; $4,491 for privately obtained occupational therapy services from January 2025 through May 2025; and $12,555 for privately obtained ABA services from October 2024 through January 2025. (Parent Ex. 53-55). The evidence does not establish that these privately obtained services were educational services reasonably necessary to remedy the denial of FAPE found in this Decision.

Moreover, equitable considerations weigh against reimbursement. The record does not establish that the Parents informed the Board that they were obtaining these private services because they believed the Board’s program was inadequate or that they intended to seek reimbursement for those expenditures. Under the circumstances presented here, that factor weighs against reimbursement as an equitable matter. In addition, in light of the comprehensive prospective compensatory education award ordered above, the evidence does not establish that reimbursement for these previously obtained private services is necessary to place the Student in the position he would have occupied absent the Board’s denial of FAPE.

Accordingly, the Parents’ request for reimbursement is denied.

Final Decision And Order

  1. The Board provided the Student a FAPE for the 2023-2024 school year beginning May 19, 2024 through the conclusion of the 2023-2024 school year.
  2. The Board did not deny the Student a FAPE by declining to conduct an FBA during the period from May 19, 2024 through the conclusion of the 2023-2024 school year.
  3. The Board did not deny the Student a FAPE by removing paraprofessional and other supports at the beginning of the 2024-2025 school year.
  4. By approximately February 2025, the Board was required to develop an adequate function-based behavioral program to address the Student's regression and escalating behavior.
  5. The Board's failure to timely develop an adequate function-based behavioral program, including its failure to timely conduct an FBA and to implement an adequate behavioral program, denied the Student a FAPE from approximately February 2025 through January 19, 2026.
  6. The Parents were not denied meaningful participation in the PPT process during the school years at issue.
  7. The Board did not predetermine the Student’s program or placement during the school years at issue.
  8. Identification of the Student’s current clinic as the provider of BCBA and RBT or BT services was not required in order to offer a FAPE for the 2026-2027 school year.
  9. As compensatory education, the Board shall provide:
    1. 360 minutes per week (6 hours) of BCBA consultation services provided by a BCBA from the Student's clinic, from August 1, 2026 through July 31, 2027; and
    2. 34.17 hours per week of BT or RBT services provided by a BT or RBT from the Student's clinic, from August 1, 2026 through July 31, 2027.
  10. The Parents' requests for reimbursement of the costs of the privately obtained psychological consultation report, ABA services, occupational therapy services, and speech-language therapy services are denied.

1 At the hearing, the Parties agreed to amend issue number two to state: Did the Board fail to appropriately evaluate the student as it relates to conducting an FBA. (Tr. p. 438). ↩︎

2 The Parent filed her second Amended Complaint on May 19, 2026. Based on the two year statute of limitations, the time period at issue begins May 19, 2024. ↩︎

3 Parent Ex. 9 is a duplicate of Board Ex. 79. For the purposes of this Decision, references will be to Board Ex. 79. ↩︎

4 The Student’s May 1, 2026 IEP determined that 360 minutes per week of BCBA services were required from May 22, 2026 to May 21, 2027, and this information was considered in determining the daily and weekly compensatory award. ↩︎

5 The Student’s May 1, 2026 IEP indicates that the Student’s school day will be 6.83 hours per day; 34.17 hours per week, and this information was relied upon in determining the daily and weekly compensatory education award. ↩︎

6 Any BCBA or BT compensatory services that are not used during the stated time period may be used during the subsequent year. ↩︎