Connecticut State Department of Education

Final Decision and Order Case #26-0339

February 26, 2026

Student1 v. Mansfield Board of Education

Appearing on behalf of Student:
Students Father, Pro Se

Appearing on behalf of the Board of Education:
Attorney Melinda Kaufmann
Pullman & Comley
90 State House Square
Hartford, CT 06103

Appearing before:
Janis C. Jerman
Hearing Officer

Final Decision and Order

Procedural Posture

Students Father filed a Request for Impartial Special Education Hearing dated December 5, 2025 pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act2 (IDEA). The Board of Education (BOE) received the Request for Hearing on December 19, 2025. The undersigned Hearing Officer was appointed to this case on December 19, 2025. The parties participated in a resolution session on December 23, 2025 and did not come to a resolution.

On December 24, 2025, BOEs Attorney filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that the Request for Hearing is insufficient and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On December 29, 2025, Students Father filed an Amended Request for Hearing which resets the case timeline. The amended 30-day resolution period ended January 28, 2026 and the deadline to mail the final decision and order is March 14, 2026.5 BOEs Attorney renewed the Motion to Dismiss as to the Amended Request for Hearing, alleging that it is insufficient and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Amended Request for Hearing was deemed sufficient and the Motion to Dismiss was denied.

At the January 5, 2026 telephonic prehearing conference,6 Students Father appeared on behalf of Student and Attorney Kaufmann appeared on behalf of BOE. The following issues are identified:

  1. Did the Board of Education fail to provide Student a free appropriate public education for the 2025-26 school year by:7
    1. changing Students special education program without conducting an evaluation;
    2. convening the January 16, 2025 Planning and Placement Team meeting without all required team members; and/or
    3. failing to include Students Parents as meaningful participants in Students educational decisions?8
  2. If the answer to Issue One is affirmative, what shall be the remedy?

Students Father requested a Stay-Put order for services under an Individualized Education Program (IEP) that was in place prior to January 2025. Student was in the general education curriculum as of the date that Students Father filed for this due process hearing. The general education program is Students Stay-Put placement. BOE was ordered to maintain Student in his Stay-Put placement during the pendency of this case unless they and Students Parents otherwise agree.

Hearings were scheduled for February 12, 19, and 20, 2026. On February 2, 2026 BOEs Attorney filed a Motion to Extend Hearing Deadline requesting a 45-day extension of the deadline to mail the final decision and order to allow the parties to brief the issues and provide the Hearing Officer sufficient time to issue a decision. Students Father objected to the Motion, stating that a delay will prejudice Student. The Motion was initially deemed premature and was held in abeyance since hearings had not convened and it was not known whether post-hearing briefs would be necessary.

BOE offered 78 exhibits (B-1 through B-78) which were admitted as full exhibits over Students Fathers objection. Students Father offered one exhibit (S-1) which was duplicative of exhibit B-32 and therefore not admitted as a full exhibit (it was marked for identification). The December 5, 2025 Request for Due Process Hearing was marked as Hearing Officer exhibit 1 (HO-1) and the December 29, 2025 Amended Request for Due Process Hearing was marked as HO-2. The parties did not submit a stipulation of uncontested facts.

At the February 12, 2026 hearing, BOEs Attorney and Students Father each made an opening statement. The following witnesses were questioned under oath and subject to cross-examination: Director of Student Support Services (Director); Special Education Teacher (SpecEd Teacher), School Psychologist, Third Grade Teacher (Gr3 Teacher), and Elementary School Speech Language Pathologist (Elementary SLP).

On the record at the February 12, 2026 hearing, BOEs Attorney renewed the Motion to Extend Hearing Deadline. After considering the parties positions, the hearing record, and case timeline, the Motion was denied. The parties were granted the opportunity to present an oral closing argument at the conclusion of the hearing in lieu of post-hearing briefs.

At the February 19, 2026 hearing, the following witnesses were questioned under oath and subject to cross-examination: Third Grade Speech Language Pathologist (Gr3 SLP); Literacy Coach, and Students Father. BOEs Attorney and Students Father each made a closing statement. The February 20, 2026 hearing was cancelled.

To the extent that procedural history, statement of jurisdiction, findings of fact, or discussion represent conclusions of law, they should be so considered, and vice versa.

Statement of Jurisdiction

This matter was heard as a contested case pursuant to C.G.S. 10-76h and 20 U.S.C. 1415(f) and related regulations and in accordance with the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA).3

Findings of Relevant Fact4

Qualifications of Staff Witnesses

Director holds a Bachelor of Arts, a Master of Business Administration, and a PhD in school psychology. She holds Connecticut certifications in Intermediate Administration or Supervision (092) and School Psychology (070). She has served as BOEs director of student support services for nine years. In that capacity, she oversees special education, Section 504, multilingual learners, family engagement, pre-K transition, and health services. She previously worked as a school psychologist for BOE and another district and as a professor of psychology. Director is familiar with Student and his educational records. She has attended Planning and Placement Team (PPT) meetings for him. (Exh. B-77; Testimony of Director)

SpecEd Teacher holds a Bachelors degree in music therapy and a Master of Arts in teaching. She is certified by the State of Connecticut to teach K-12 special education and is a board-certified music therapist. She has taught special education within BOEs district for four years and previously taught for four years in another district. She provides IEP services and academic supports to students, serves as case manager, writes IEPs, and facilitates PPT meetings. SpecEd Teacher met Student in fall 2022 when he was a kindergarten student and she provided him academic support. (Exh. B-77; Testimony of SpecEd Teacher)

School Psychologist holds an Associates degree in liberal arts and science, Bachelor of Arts in psychology, Master of Science in school psychology, and Sixth Year Certificate in school psychology. She is certified as a school psychologist by the State of Connecticut and is nationally certified by the National Association of School Psychologists. She has worked as a school psychologist for BOE for eleven years and is assigned to the elementary school. She participates in PPT meetings; serves as case manager for Section 504 plans; consults with teachers, staff and outside agencies; and conducts evaluations. School Psychologist is not a certified special education teacher or administrator. School Psychologist met Student in preschool but did not work with him prior to third grade. (Exh. B-77; Testimony of School Psychologist)

Gr3 Teacher holds a Bachelor of Science and Master of Science in elementary education and has completed fifteen hours of graduate courses in instructional strategies. She is certified to teach grades K-6 in Connecticut and grades K-8 in Maine. She has taught in BOEs district for 25 years and has 35 total years experience teaching. She was Students third grade teacher from September to December 2025. (Exh. B-77; Testimony of Gr3 Teacher)

Elementary SLP holds a Bachelor of Arts in speech and a Master of Science in communication disorders. She is licensed by the State Department of Public Health and holds a Connecticut teaching certificate with an endorsement as a speech language pathologist. She is nationally certified with a Certification of Clinical Competence. She worked for BOE as a speech language pathologist for six years prior to retiring. She has 28 total years of experience. She began working with Student when he turned three years old. She worked with him during preschool, in his second year of kindergarten, and in first and second grade. (Exh. B-77; Testimony of Elementary SLP)

Gr3 SLP holds a Bachelor of Arts in speech, language, and hearing sciences and a Master of Arts in speech language pathology. She is licensed by the State Department of Public Health and certified by the Connecticut Department of Education as a speech language pathologist. She started working for BOE in July 2025. She has previous experience as a graduate student clinician administering evaluations, completing IEPs, and treating students with communication disorders. She serves as an IEP case manager. She met Student when she evaluated him in November 2025 when he was in third grade. (Exh. B-77; Testimony of Gr3 SLP)

Literacy Coach holds a Bachelor of Science degree in elementary education, a Master of Art in curriculum and instruction, and a certification in remedial reading and remedial language arts. She is certified in elementary education K-6 and remedial reading and remedial language arts 1-12 in Connecticut. She is trained in Orton-Gillingham Plus. She has worked as BOEs Literacy Coach for four years and previously worked as an elementary school classroom teacher for eight years. As Literacy Coach, she provides reading intervention services to students in kindergarten through fourth grade, oversees two academic support paraeducators, and works with English language arts classroom teachers. Literacy Coach worked with Student in first grade and supervised his reading intervention program in third grade. (Exh. B-77; Testimony of Literacy Coach)

Elementary School Assistant Principal (Principal) holds a Bachelor of Arts in communications and public relations, a Masters degree in reading, and a Sixth-Year certificate in educational leadership. She is certified in teaching and educational leadership. She has served as BOEs elementary school assistant principal since July 2022. In that capacity she has experience developing and managing budgets and schedules, aligning resources to optimize staffing, professional development, and student support services including MTSS, and overseeing placements. She previously worked as a curriculum specialist and classroom teacher for other school districts. (Exh. B-77)

Students Educational History

Student was referred to special education at a transition meeting during the Birth To Three process. (Exh. B-1, B-2, B-3; Testimony of Director)

At a meeting attended by Students Mother, the PPT determined Student was eligible for special education services under the primary disability of speech or language impaired and developed an IEP that provided Student with speech and language therapy in the pre-K program. BOE provided Students Parents with Prior Written Notice (PWN) of this action. (Exh. B-3; Testimony of Director)

Student attended the pre-K program again the following year. At a meeting attended by Students Mother, the PPT recommended adding academic support and social/behavioral support to Students IEP and planned to conduct physical therapy and occupational therapy evaluations. BOE provided Students Parents with PWN for this action. (Exh. B-4; Testimony of Director)

At a meeting attended by Students Mother, the PPT reviewed the evaluations and revised Students IEP to add physical therapy and occupational therapy services. BOE provided Students Parents with PWN for this action. (Exh. B-5; Testimony of Director)

In fall 2021, Student entered kindergarten as a four-year old, which was at a fairly young age. At a meeting attended by Students Mother and Students Father, the PPT developed an IEP that included speech and language therapy, math and reading instruction/academic support, physical therapy, and occupational therapy. The PPT also planned Students triennial evaluation for the following year. BOE provided Students Parents with PWN for this action. (Exh. B-6; Testimony of Director)

In May 2022, the PPT met to revise Students IEP to include social skills group. Students Mother attended the PPT meeting and signed for consent to conduct fine and gross motor development, academic, and speech and language evaluations. BOE provided Students Parents with PWN for this action. (Exh. B-7, B-8; Testimony of Director)

Beginning in 2022, the State of Connecticut implemented the CTSEDS portal which houses all special education records for Students. Parents receive an email indicating when there is a new document in the portal for their child and can access the portal to review records. (Testimony of Director, School Psychologist) Students Father does not check the CTSEDS portal. (Testimony of Students Father)

Student repeated kindergarten in the 2022-23 school year since he was so young. (Exh. B-13; Testimony of Director)

The evaluations recommended at the May 2022 PPT meeting were completed in fall 2022 and reviewed at a PPT meeting in November 2022. The PPT also discussed Students progress and developed an IEP for Student that included speech language therapy and physical therapy, informal social skills support, and occupational therapy consult. Direct occupational therapy, academic support and social skills support were removed from the IEP. Students Mother attended the PPT meeting and did not disagree with the recommendations. BOE provided Students Parents with PWN for this action via email and through CTSEDS. (Exh. B-10, B-11, B-12, B-13, B-14, B-15, B-16; Testimony of Director, SpecEd Teacher)

Physical Therapist conducted a physical therapy evaluation of Student in fall 2023 when Student was in first grade. Physical Therapist recommended that Student be discharged from physical therapy because he made progress in all areas and met his goals. (Exh. B-20; Testimony of Director)

At an October 2023 annual review meeting attended by Students Mother, the PPT reviewed the physical therapy evaluation and Students progress. The PPT developed an IEP that continued speech language therapy and discontinued direct physical therapy and occupational therapy consult services. BOE provided Students Parents with PWN for this action. (Exh. B-19, B-20, B-21; Testimony of Director)

After November 2023, Student had no special education services other than speech language. Elementary SLP served as Students case manager because his special education services were only in speech and language. Student continued to receive reading support through the general education multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) which is a framework for providing targeted support to students who need additional support in a less restrictive environment. (Exh. B-21; Testimony of Director, Elementary SLP, Literacy Coach)

From the time she worked with him in preschool, kindergarten, and first and second grades, Elementary SLP saw Student grow from a small child with difficulty sitting still and focusing to a more mature conscientious student who was always concerned about doing his best work. During the 2024-25 school year when Student was in second grade, Elementary SLP worked with Student to improve his articulation. In fall 2024, Elementary SLP recommended a complete evaluation because she thought that Student did not need speech language services anymore. (Testimony of Elementary SLP)

At the October 2024 annual review meeting attended by Students Mother, the PPT reviewed Students speech language goals and progress in the general education classroom. Students triennial evaluation was not due until November 2025 but Elementary SLP thought that he made enough progress on his goals to not need continuing services so she recommended completing an evaluation over the winter to see if he still needed services. Students Mother did not object to conducting the evaluation early and signed consent to conduct a speech language evaluation. BOE hand delivered PWN to Students Mother. (Exh. B-26, B-27, B-28, B-29; Testimony of Director, Elementary SLP)

Students Exit from Special Education

Elementary SLP administered a speech language evaluation consisting of Goldman Fristoe Test of Articulation 3rd Edition (GFTA-3) and speech samples. It is best practice to use multiple assessment sources. The GFTA-3 is normed by age and gender and assesses articulation. The speech samples were an opportunity to evaluate Students speech articulation in a less structured more conversational manner. Elementary SLP observed Student in speech language therapy and informally in the classroom. (Exh. B-32; Testimony of Elementary SLP)

On the GFTA-3, Student scored 102 (55th percentile) on both the Sounds-in-Words and Sounds-in-Sentences tests. Those scores are in the average range compared to peers of the same age and gender. Student was rated 1 (good) in intelligibility in 100% of his speech productions during the evaluation. The evaluation revealed that Students speech language abilities are age appropriate. (Exh. B-32; Testimony of Elementary SLP)

Elementary SLP sent a copy of the evaluation report to Students Mother in advance of the PPT meeting. She notified Students Mother that she will recommend dismissing Student from speech therapy as there is nothing else for him to work on and that Student will continue to receive reading intervention supports. Students Mother responded by thanking Elementary SLP for her work with Student. (Exh. B-32; Testimony of Elementary SLP)

On January 7, 2025, BOE emailed Students Mother and Students Father a notice of a PPT meeting scheduled for January 16, 2025 to review the speech language evaluation. The notice indicated that Students Mother, Students Father, an administrator, the general education teacher, and Elementary SLP were invited to attend the PPT meeting. (Exh. B-31; Testimony of Director)

The PPT met on January 16, 2025. The following individuals attended the meeting: Students Mother; general education teacher; Elementary SLP (a special education provider); and Principal. Students Mother asked questions and participated in the meeting. (Exh. B-34; Testimony of Elementary SLP, Director)

At the PPT meeting, the general education teacher talked about Students progress during second grade. The PPT reviewed the speech language evaluation and determined that Student was no longer eligible for special education and would be returned to general education and that he would continue to receive reading support through MTSS. BOE provided Students Parents with PWN for this action. (Exh. B-33, B-34; Testimony of Director)

Third Grade - 2025-26 School Year

Student began third grade in September 2025. He was in general education and did not have an IEP in third grade. He received reading intervention three times a week. He is well-liked by his peers, has many friends, loves participating in class activities, is a good storyteller and enjoys talking, and worked very hard in class. (Testimony of Gr3 Teacher)

Gr3 Teacher had no concerns with Students speech in class. Student made significant progress in class between September and December. In September, Students reading scores on the IReady progress monitoring assessment placed him in the 51st percentile; in December he was in the 63rd percentile. Gr3 Teacher saw growth in Students reading. He began to select higher level books for independent reading and his written response to reading significantly improved. At the beginning of the school year, Gr3 Teacher gave Student sentence starters when he struggled to get started with his writing. By late November, he no longer needed sentence starters. Student was meeting standards for third grade and on peer level. (Testimony of Gr3 Teacher)

Students Parents did not sign up for a parent teacher conference when invited. Gr3 Teacher reached out to Students Parents to see if they wanted to sign up and they said that they did not need a parent teacher conference. They raised no concerns to Gr3 Teacher prior to October 2025. (Testimony of Gr3Teacher)

Student had eight absences in the first couple of months of third grade. School Psychologist spoke with Students Mother about the absences. (Testimony of School Psychologist, Gr3 Teacher)

In October 2025, Students Father notified Director that the record of the January 16, 2025 PPT meeting indicated that he attended but he did not. Director updated the record to indicate that he was not present. (Exh. B-34, B-41; Testimony of Director)

Rereferral to Special Education

In October 2025, Students Father raised concerns about Students academic progress, specifically reading, writing, and language fluency and made a referral to determine eligibility for special education. Students Father disagreed with the PPT recommendation to exit Student from special education in January 2025 and requested that the IEP be reinstated. The PPT discussed the process for a rereferral to special education. Students Father completed the referral paperwork. (Exh. B-36; Testimony of Director, SpecEd Teacher, Gr3 Teacher, School Psychologist)

A PPT meeting was scheduled for October 20, 2025 to discuss Students Fathers concerns and rereferral to special education. Students Father requested that the meeting be conducted via email. Director spoke to staff at the Due Process Unit who advised her that a PPT cannot be conducted via email. BOE offered for Students Parents to attend by phone, virtually with camera on or off, or in person. (Exh. B-37; Testimony of Director)

On October 22, 2025, Students Father emailed a Parent IEP Plan that he requested to have put in place for Student. (Exh. B-41) On October 23, the PPT meeting was rescheduled for October 31, 2025. (Exh. B-40, B-41; Testimony of Director)

The PPT met on October 31, 2025 to review the referral. Students Parents did not attend the meeting. BOE called Students Father from the meeting to see if they were going to participate. Students Parents declined to participate. The PPT discussed Students Fathers concerns and agreed to evaluate Student. BOE provided Students Parents with the Record of Meeting indicating that they will move forward with planning an evaluation. BOE provided Students Parents with PWN for this action. (Exh. B-42, B-43; Testimony of Director, SpecEd Teacher, School Psychologist)

Students Father consented to the recommended evaluations on October 31, 2025. (Exh. B-44; Testimony of Director, SpecEd Teacher) BOE conducted an occupational therapy evaluation and multidisciplinary evaluation. (Exh. B-45, B-62; Testimony of Director, SpecEd Teacher, School Psychologist)

As part of the multidisciplinary evaluation School Psychologist administered the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children 5th Edition (WISC-V) and the Behavior Assessment System for Children 3rd Edition (BASC-3) and conducted observations. The WISC-V is a standardized tool to assess Students current cognitive ability. Students general cognitive ability is within the high average range of intellectual functioning. He scored in the average range on the verbal comprehension, working memory, and processing speed indexes and high average on fluid reasoning and visual spatial indexes. (Exh. B-62; Testimony of School Psychologist)

As part of the evaluation, School Psychologist asked Gr3 Teacher and Students Father to complete the BASC-3 rating scales. Gr3 Teacher rated Student average on all areas except learning problems (rated 60) and atypicality (61) which were just in the at-risk range which is 60-99 on the clinical scales. The ratings are not clinically significant and are something to keep an eye on. Students Father rated Student at-risk for attention problems (63) and withdrawal (60) on the clinical scales and adaptability (34), leadership (33), and functional communication (34) on the adaptive scales. At-risk range on adaptive scales is 30-39. School staff do not see those concerns at school currently and acknowledge that Student historically had attention problems at school. (Exh. B-62; Testimony of School Psychologist)

As part of the evaluation, School Psychologist observed Student in his English language arts class in the regular education classroom during an independent work session. Student initiated work and maintained focus and demonstrated self-advocacy skills. Compared to his peers, he was on task a higher percentage of time as compared to his peers in the class. (Exh. B-62; Testimony of School Psychologist)

As part of the multidisciplinary evaluation, SpecEd Teacher administered the Woodcock Johnson Test of Achievement IV (WJ-IV) and Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing 2nd Edition (CTOPP-2). She also reviewed the following curriculum-based assessments: IReady, Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills 8th Edition (DIBELS), Fountas & Pinnell Reading Benchmark (F&P), Core Phonics Survey, and Phonological Awareness Screening Test (PAST). (Exh. B-62; Testimony of SpecEd Teacher)

The WJ-IV is a standardized assessment of Students overall reading, writing, and math achievement levels. Students broad reading, writing, and math scores on the WJ-IV were in the average range compared to his grade level peers across the country. (Exh. B-62; Testimony of SpecEd Teacher)

The CTOPP-2 is individually administered to assess phonological skills and specific phonological processing strengths and weaknesses. Student scored above average in phonological awareness (79th percentile), average in phonological evaluation; b. convening the January 16, 2025 Planning and Placement Team meeting without all required team members; and/or c. failing to include Students Parents as meaningful participants in Students educational decisions. The case is dismissed.

Final Decision and Order

The case is dismissed.

  1. In order to comply with the confidentiality requirements of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, 20 U.S.C. 1232g (FERPA) and related regulations at 34 C.F.R. 99, this decision uses Student, Parents, and titles of certain school staff members and witnesses in place of names and other personally-identifiable information. ↩︎
  2. 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. ↩︎
  3. C.G.S. 4-176e to 4-178, inclusive, 4-181a and 4-186. ↩︎
  4. Findings of Fact are cited as FOF # in the Discussion section. ↩︎
  5. Conclusions of Law are cited as COL # in the Discussion section. ↩︎
  6. C.G.S. 10-76h(d)(1). ↩︎
  7. 34 C.F.R. 300.23, 300.321; Conn.Regs. 10-76a-1(14) ↩︎
  8. Conn.Regs. 10-76a-1(14) ↩︎
  9. 34 C.F.R. 300.501(b)(1); Conn.Regs. 10-76d-12(a). ↩︎
  10. 34 C.F.R. 300.501(c)(4); ↩︎