Connecticut State Department of Education

Final Decision and Order Case #26-0291

August 24, 2026

Student v. Woodbridge Board of Education

Appearing on behalf of the Parent:
Pro Se

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

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

Final Decision And Order

Issues:

  1. Did the District fail to offer an appropriate program to the Student for the 2025-26 school year?
  2. Did the District commit procedural violations amounting to denial of a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for the 2025-26 school year?
  3. If the District has committed any violations what remedies should be ordered?

Procedural History:

Case 26-0291 was commenced by the Parents by request received by the District on December 15, 2025. A prehearing conference was held on February 2, 2026. At the prehearing conference, a hearing date was set for April 10, 2026 and the decision date was determined to be February 27, 2026. The hearing date was later cancelled and rescheduled to June 9, 2026 and the decision date extended to August 27, 2026.1

The following witnesses testified for the District:

  • [REDACTED], Director of Special Services
  • [REDACTED], Special Education Teacher
  • [REDACTED], Special Education Teacher and Structured Literacy Instructor

The following witnesses testified for the Parents:

  • Mother

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

Board Exhibits B-1 through B-34 were entered as full exhibits.

Parent Exhibits P-1, P-2, P-4 through P-8 and P-14 were entered as full exhibits; a portion of P-11 was also admitted.

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

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

Statement Of Jurisdiction:

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

Findings Of Fact:

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

  1. The Student, whose date of birth is 3/13/15, is a student entering sixth grade who resides with her parents within the District. (B-24.)
  2. The Student is classified with a primary disability of Specific Learning Disability (SLD)/Dyslexia. (B-24.)
  3. On March 6, 2023, a Planning and Placement Team (PPT) recommended an initial evaluation of the Student to determine eligibility for special education and related services. (B-1.)
  4. On March 8, 2023, the Mother consented to the evaluation recommended by the PPT. (B-2.)
  5. The assessments conducted were classroom observation, record review, Conners—Fourth Edition (Conners-4), Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing—Second Edition (CTOPP-2), Classical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (CELF-5), Test of Integrated Language and Literacy Skills (TILLS), Wechsler Individual Achievement Test—4 (WIAT-4), Gray Oral Reading Tests—Fifth Edition (GORT-5) and Test of Word Reading Efficiency—Second Edition (TOWRE-2). (B-3.)
  6. After receiving the results of the evaluation, the PPT reconvened on May 30, 2023 and found the Student eligible for special education and related services under the aforementioned classification of SLD/Dyslexia. (B-4.)
  7. The Individualized Education Plan recommended by the PPT on May 30, 2023 included goals in the areas of decoding, spelling and reading fluency. (B-4.)
  8. The IEP specifically provided for structured literacy instruction in a small group setting for four thirty-minute periods in a six-day cycle. (B-4.)
  9. Further PPT meetings were held on May 20, 2024; November 8, 2024; March 11, 2025 and May 16, 2025. (B-5, B-7, B-9, B-13.)
  10. On September 22, 2024, the Parents received a private evaluation report from Dr Jeanette Moore of Ridgefield. (B-6.)
  11. The assessments conducted were a file review, Feifer Assessment of Reading (FAR), Gray Silent Reading Test (GRST), Test of Silent Reading Fluency—Second Edition (TOSWRF-2), GORT-5, TOWRE-2, Symbol Imagery Test (SIT), Test of Orthographic Competence—Second Edition (TOC-2), PAF Test of Single Word Reading, Phonological Awareness Screening Test (PAST), Jennings Informal Reading Assessment, Gallistel Ellis: Test of Coding Skills (GE), Word Identification and Spelling Test (WIST)—Sight Word Sample and Test of Written Language (TOWL-4). (B-6.)
  12. [REDACTED] was present at the PPT of November 8, 2024 and presented and discussed her findings. (B-7.)
  13. At that PPT, the IEP was amended to include the provision of 6-week progress updates to the family. (B-7.)
  14. The IEP adopted at that time provided for five 30-minute periods of structured literacy instruction in a six-day cycle provided by the special education teacher in a small group/individual setting, four 30-minute periods of reading instruction in a six-day cycle provided by the special education teacher in a small-group setting, four 30-minute periods of mathematics instruction provided by the special education teacher and three 30-minute periods of language/communications instruction per month provided by the speech/language pathologist in a small group setting. (B-7.)
  15. [REDACTED] report specifically recommended that the Student have “access to specific, continuous targeted reading intervention programs rooted in structured literacy, specifically influenced by the Orton-Gillingham approach.” (B-7.)
  16. [REDACTED] report further recommended that the Student may benefit from a systematic, science of reading, structured literacy-based reading intervention program that is administered 4-5 days per week for a minimum of 45 minutes per day.” (B-7.)
  17. [REDACTED] report also states that “Frequency of intervention, not duration, will yield the greatest results.” (B-7.)
  18. The Student was receiving Orton-Gillingham instruction from [REDACTED], who was a special education teacher and instructor in structured literacy. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  19. [REDACTED] has been a special education teacher since 2021 and is certified in comprehensive K-12 special education and Orton-Gillingham. (B-29, Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  20. The Student was given passages to read which were “warm reads” (passages with which the Student had some prior familiarity) instead of “cold reads” (passages which the Student had never seen before) because that is what is recommended for Orton-Gillingham instruction. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  21. The IEP of May 16, 2025 revised the instruction provided (in 30-minute increments) to six days of reading instruction in a 6-day cycle (split between small group/individual and whole group instruction), six days of mathematics in a 6-day cycle, six days of structured literacy in a 6-day cycle, six days of writing in a 6-day cycle (split between small group/individual and whole group instruction) and six days of language/communication per month. (B-13.)
  22. At that meeting, the PPT proposed a triennial revaluation to take place in May of 2026. (B-13.)
  23. The Parents consented to the reevaluation. (B-14.)
  24. On October 6, 2025, the PPT met at the Parents’ request to review and consider revisions to the IEP. (B-19.)2
  25. The Parents waived five-day notice and the attendance of the general education teacher. (B-19.)
  26. The PPT added noise-cancelling headphones and 30 minutes of group counseling in the 6-day cycle to the Student’s IEP. (B-19.)
  27. The District held a team meeting with the Parents on October 9, 2025 to discuss the six-week update to them. (B-20.)
  28. On October 27, 2025 another PPT was held at the request of the Parents. (B-22.)
  29. The PPT added 30 minutes of individual counseling per 6-day cycle to the Student’s IEP. (B-22.)
  30. On November 14, 2025 another PPT was held at the request of the Parents. (B-24.)
  31. At that PPT, the team agreed to the Parent request to develop a fluency goal but did not agree to the Parent request to 45-minute increments of Orton-Gillingham instruction four days per week as per [REDACTED] recommendation. (B-24.)
  32. After the PPT meeting the District proposed a fluency goal but the Parents disagreed with the proposal. (Testimony of [REDACTED], Testimony of Mother.)
  33. The proposed goal was “Given grade level text and an opportunity to read fluently, [Student] will improve her current level of 107 WPM [words per minute] with 96% accuracy to 120 WPM with 95% accuracy, as measured by an improvement of scores over multiple measures.” (B-24.)
  34. The Parents’ position was partially based on information provided by a private tutor to whom the Parents refused consent to allow any access. (Testimony of Mother.)
  35. While the District proposed convening a PPT meeting to resolve differences, the Parents refused to attend another PPT and instead filed for due process. (Testimony of [REDACTED], Testimony of Mother.)
  36. The Student’s December 5, 2025 progress report showed that she had mastered two of her reading short-term goals and made satisfactory progress on all others and all annual goals. (B-26.)
  37. The report showed that the Student had mastered one of her writing short-term goals and made satisfactory progress on all others and all annual goals. (B-26.)
  38. According to the report, the Student had made satisfactory progress on all communications goals. (B-26.)
  39. The Student had mastered all of her goals related to algebra and either mastered or made satisfactory progress on all other mathematical goals. (B-26.)

Conclusions Of Law And Discussion:

1. Did the District fail to offer an appropriate program to the Student for the 2025-26 school year?

The substantive failures which the Parents allege in their brief are, “the District developed and implemented an inappropriate reading fluency goal” and “the District failed to provide dyslexia-appropriate fluency instruction.”3

An IEP must be “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress in light of the child’s circumstances.” Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, 580 US 386, 399 (2017). Annual goals must be “appropriately ambitious”. Id at 388.

The fluency goal was developed in response to a parent request. (Finding of Fact #31.) The Parents refused to participate in another PPT to discuss the appropriateness of the goal. (Finding of Fact #35.) The Parents’ belief that the goal was inappropriate was apparently based on advice from a then-unnamed tutor that had not attended any PPT and to whom the Parents had refused to allow the District any access. (Finding of Fact #34.) As the proposed goal represented an increase in fluency by 13 words per minute, it is not obvious to a layman why that would not be appropriately ambitious. (Finding of Fact #33.)

While the Parents apparently believe that the Student’s fluency should have been measured by “cold reads”, they did not present any expert testimony to buttress that or any other position. The only expert testimony on the subject established that “warm reads” were proper under the Orton-Gillingham measure of instruction. (Finding of Fact #20.) In any event, since the goal was for the student to significantly increase fluency, what was most important from the standpoint of measuring progress was that a consistent procedure be used.

Therefore, the undersigned Hearing Officer finds the proposed fluency goal to be appropriate.

While the Parents contend that the District failed to provide “dyslexia-appropriate fluency instruction”, the specific dispute raised at a PPT was whether the Student should receive structured literacy instruction in 45-minute blocks, as recommended by [REDACTED], or more frequent 30-minute blocks, as the Student’s IEP provides. It should first be noted that four 45-minute blocks and six 30-minute blocks both result in 180 minutes of instruction, so the mathematical difference between the two approaches would appear to be less than compelling. [REDACTED] herself wrote that frequency of intervention was more important than duration (Finding of Fact #17) so it is not clear why the District’s approach of providing more frequent structured literacy instruction for shorter periods is considered incorrect by the Parents.4

With the exception of the dispute over the allocation of time for structured literacy instruction, the District is mostly providing the instruction that the Parents want. The private evaluation recommended that the Student be taught structured literacy through the Orton-Gillingham methodology. (Finding of Fact #15.) The District was in fact providing Orton-Gillingham instruction delivered by a certified Orton-Gillingham instructor. (Findings of Fact #18, 19.) The Student had mostly made satisfactory progress on her goals and had mastered some. (Findings of Fact #36-39.)5

Therefore, the undersigned Hearing Officer finds the instruction that was provided to the Student to be appropriate.

Accordingly, the District offered an appropriate program to the Student for the 2025-26 school year.

2. Did the District commit procedural violations amounting to denial of a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for the 2025-26 school year?

The procedural deficiencies alleged by the Parents in their brief are “the District failed to meaningfully consider the findings and recommendations of the Independent Educational Evaluation” and “[the Parents’] ability to meaningfully participate in educational decision-making was impeded because [the Parents were] not provided transparent and understandable information concerning [REDACTED] progress”.

34 CFR §300.513(a)(2) provides:

In matters alleging a procedural violation, a hearing officer may find that a child did not receive a FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies—

  1. Impeded the child’s right to a FAPE;
  2. Significantly impeded the parent’s opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the parent’s child; or
  3. Caused a deprivation of educational benefit.

Therefore, to find a procedural violation amounting to a denial of FAPE a hearing officer must find both that a procedural violation occurred and that it resulted in a specified form of harm.

The IEP adopted after the receipt of [REDACTED] evaluation did provide for substantial structured literacy instruction. (Finding of Fact #14.) The District was already providing Orton-Gillingham instruction as recommended by [REDACTED]. (Finding of Fact #15.) [REDACTED] own report suggested that more frequent structured literacy instruction in shorter increments was the preferred approach. (Finding of Fact #17.) Therefore, while the District did not agree with one specific recommendation contained in [REDACTED] report, there is no evidence that it did not give the report due consideration. Further, as noted above, the evidence provides no basis for concluding that the choice of more frequent 30-minute intervals of instruction resulted in any educational harm to the child.

Therefore, the undersigned Hearing Officer finds no procedural violation in the PPT’s handling of the information provided by [REDACTED] evaluation.

While the Parents allege that the District significantly impeded their opportunity to participate in the decision-making process, it is not clear what specific procedural violation is being alleged that resulted in that impairment. The brief states that the Parents were “not given the information necessary to understand the educational data well enough to evaluate the decisions being made for [the Student]” and that they did not receive “an understandable explanation of the information upon which educational decisions are based”. There are specific requirements as to districts’ obligations to provide parents with information and there is no claim that any of these were violated. See, e.g., 34 CFR §300.322, 34 CFR §300.501. The Parents’ claim appears to be a subjective lack of understanding of the process on their part without any identification of any specific failure on the part of the District.

The record indicates that the Parents actively participated in the PPT process and that the District was responsive to their concerns. [REDACTED] was at the PPT after she issued her report and the District adopted an IEP largely consistent with her findings. (Findings of Fact #10, 12, 14-15, 17-19.) The PPT added six-week progress updates for the family to the IEP. (Finding of Fact #13.) The District held seven PPTs between May 20, 2024 and November 14, 2025. (Findings of Fact #9, 24, 28, 30.) The PPTs made other revisions to the IEP in response to Parent concerns. (Findings of Fact #26, 29.) The fluency goal that was proposed by the District was developed at the request of the Parents. (Findings of Fact #31.) When the District attempted to schedule another PPT to resolve differences, it was the Parents who refused to meet. (Finding of Fact #35.) When the District attempted to discuss the Student’s program with the private tutor who was apparently providing information that was being relied upon by the Parents, they refused to allow any access to the tutor. (Finding of Fact #34.)

Accordingly, the undersigned Hearing Officer finds no procedural violation related to the Parents’ ability to meaningfully participate in the PPT process.

Therefore, the District did not commit any procedural violations amounting to a denial of FAPE for the 2025-26 school year.

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

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

Final Decision And Order:

The undersigned Hearing Officer finds that the District has not committed any violations.

1 In the interim, the decision date was extended to March 30, 2026; April 29, 2026; May 29, 2026; June 26, 2026 and July 28, 2026. ↩︎

2 The meeting was rescheduled from October 1, 2025 at the Parents’ request. (B-17.) ↩︎

3 The Parents state “those failures denied [Student] a Free Appropriate Public Education” as a separate issue but it is obviously the main issue to which the other two claims are subsidiary. ↩︎

4 It should be noted that [REDACTED] did not testify. ↩︎

5 While the subject of the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) was not raised as an issue in this case by either side, it was noted in the discussion at a PPT meeting that the Parents’ approach might result in somewhat less educational time with nondisabled peers and thus would be disfavored on that ground as well. ↩︎