Connecticut State Department of Education

Final Decision and Order Case #26-0398

July 8, 2026

Old Saybrook Board of Education vs Student

Appearing on behalf of the Parent:
Pro se

Appearing on behalf of the District:
Rebecca Santiago, Esq.
Erin Shaffer, Esq.
Shipman & Goodwin, LLP
1 Constitution Plaza
Hartford, CT 06103-1919

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

Final Decision and Order

Issues

  1. Was the multidisciplinary reevaluation provided by the District appropriate?

Procedural History

Case 26-0398 was commenced by the District on February 2, 2026. A prehearing conference was held on February 13, 2026. At the prehearing conference, a hearing date was set for April 20, 2026 and the decision date was determined to be March 19, 2026. The hearing was later cancelled and rescheduled to May 27, 20261 and the decision date extended to July 17, 2026.2

The following witnesses testified for the District:

  • [REDACTED], District Occupational Therapist
  • [REDACTED], Special Education Teacher
  • [REDACTED], School Psychologist
  • [REDACTED], Speech-Language Pathologist
  • [REDACTED], Director of Student Services

The following witness testified for the Parents:

  • Mother
  • Father

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

Board Exhibits B-1 through B-32 were entered as full exhibits.

Parent Exhibits P-1 through P-3b, P-7, P-28 and P-35 were entered as full exhibits.

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

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

Statement of Jurisdiction

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

Findings of Fact

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

  1. The Student, whose date of birth is April 3, 2026, is a student completing fourth grade who resides with his parents within the District. (B-8.)
  2. The Student is identified with a primary disability of autism. (B-8.)
  3. On October 7, 2025, the Planning and Placement Team (PPT) met to revise the Individualized Education Program (IEP) of the Student and plan for the upcoming triennial evaluation. (B-8.)
  4. Based on input from the Parents at the PPT, the planned triennial evaluation included a Test of Written Language (TOWL-4), Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP-2) and evaluation of fine motor skills. (B-8.)
  5. The Parents gave consent to conduct the reevaluation on October 22, 2025. (B-11.)
  6. The occupational therapy portion of the evaluation was conducted by [REDACTED], District Occupational Therapist. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  7. [REDACTED] has worked as an occupational therapist since 2018 and received a bachelors degree in Exercise Science from College of Charleston and a masters degree Occupational Therapy from Columbia University. (B-28.)
  8. [REDACTED] is a Certified Occupational Therapy Assistant (COTA) who maintains national and state licensures in occupational therapy. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  9. [REDACTED] administered the Sensory Processing Measure (SPM) and the Beery-Buktenica Development Test of Visual-Motor Integration and Supplemental Developmental Test of Visual Perception (Beery VMI). (B-12; Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  10. [REDACTED] has completed the Beery VMI between 20 to 45 times per year since 2017 and the SPM around 40 times. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  11. [REDACTED] further reviewed the Student’s file and consulted with Hannah Joyner, an occupational therapist who had completed a previous outside evaluation. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  12. The Beery VMI was administered to the Student on December 1, 2025. (Testimony of [REDACTED]; B-12.)
  13. The Student appeared to work very quickly through the tasks contained in the exam, which likely impacted his scores. (B-12.)
  14. The Student’s scores were low for the VMI and below average in visual perception. (B-12.)
  15. Due to the fact that the Student was observed to be working quickly and the lack of alignment with the scores in the prior District evaluation as well as the outside evaluation completed by [REDACTED], the Student was retested in two weeks. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  16. Two weeks was an appropriate interval. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)3
  17. The publisher of the test does recommend readministering the exam if there is reason to question the results. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  18. On the retest, the Student received average rankings in both the VMI and visual perception. (B-12.)
  19. The results of the tests administered on both days were reported in both the draft and final evaluation reports. (P-2; B-12; Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  20. The description of the Beery VMI contained in the evaluation is actually the description of the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (BOTS-2).
  21. The Sensory Processing Measure was a questionnaire filled out by the homeroom teacher as to classroom observations and a paraprofessional as to observations in the cafeteria. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  22. The Student was rated as typical in all areas in the classroom except for balance which was rated as some problems. (B-12.)
  23. The Cafeteria Rating Scales rated the Student as having more problems than typical. (B-12.)
  24. The Academic portion of the evaluation as well as the CTOPP-2 were administered by [REDACTED], the special education teacher. (B-11; Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  25. [REDACTED] has been a special education teacher for the District for twenty years and received a bachelor's degree in special education from St Joseph's College and a masters' degree in special education with a concentration in autism disorder and developmental disabilities from Southern Connecticut State University. (B-30; Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  26. [REDACTED] has certifications from the State of Connecticut in special education and elementary education pre-K through grace 6. (B-30; Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  27. The assessments administered for the Academic portion of the evaluation were the Wechsler Individualized Achievement Test Fourth Edition (WIAT-IV), Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Third Edition (WRMT-III), TOWL-4 and Gray Oral Reading Test-Fifth Edition (GORT-5). (B-12; Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  28. As part of her job duties, [REDACTED] conducts evaluations. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  29. The evaluation was conducted in a familiar place with a familiar evaluator in a quiet, private setting and administered in several sessions of around a half an hour. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  30. The Student worked hard and was attentive and engaged. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  31. The WIAT-IV assesses reading and mathematics. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  32. Most of the Student’s scores on the WIAT-IV were in the average range although the subtests in oral reading fluency and essay composition suggested areas of weakness. (B-12; Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  33. The WMRT-III assesses a student’s reading skills, including identification and decoding of words and comprehension of passages. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  34. The Student’s scores on the WMRT-III were entirely average but the oral reading fluency score was low in the average range and again suggested an area of weakness. (B-12; Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  35. The GORT-5 particularly focuses on a student’s oral reading fluency. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  36. The Student’s scores on most of the subtests were in the average range but the score on Reading Rate and the overall Oral Reading Quotient were both below average. (B-12; Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  37. Consistent with the other tests, this result suggested that reading and fluency were areas of weakness. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  38. On the TOWL-4, the Student’s scores were average overall and on most subtests, except that the subtest for spelling was below average. (B-12; Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  39. The spelling score reinforced the conclusion that spelling and encoding were areas of weakness. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  40. The assessments were administered in accordance with the standards provided by the creators of the tests, (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  41. Along with a review of records and classroom observation, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-5th Edition (WISC-V), Behavior Assessment System for Children-Third Edition (BASC-3) and Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning Second Edition (BRIEF-2) were administered by [REDACTED], the District's School Psychologist. (B-12; Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  42. [REDACTED], has been a school psychologist since 2010 and has received a bachelor's degree from Eastern Connecticut State University with a major in psychology, a minor in sociology and a concentration in children and youth and a masters and 6th year certificate from the University of Hartford in school psychology with a specialty in clinical child counseling. (B-31; Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  43. [REDACTED] has a certification as a school psychologist and a license as a professional counselor. (B-31; Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  44. A majority of [REDACTED]'s job responsibilities involves performing evaluations. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  45. [REDACTED] has administered the WISC at least 200 times, the BASC at least 350 times and the BRIEF at least 300 times. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  46. The classroom observation showed the Student to be behaving and interacting completely appropriately with others. (B-12; Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  47. The WISC-V is a measure of intelligence (sometimes referred to as intelligence quotient or IQ). (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  48. The overall score of the Student shows high average intelligence with the scores on subtests registering between average and extremely high. (B-12; Testimony of [REDACTED],)
  49. The WISC-V showed improvements in some areas compared to previous exams and stronger skills in concrete than abstract reasoning. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  50. The BASC-3 is an assessment that measures social, emotional and behavioral functioning with ratings provided by both parents and teachers. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  51. The Parents considered the Student at-risk for externalizing problems while the teachers' composite score found him to be average in that category. (B-12; Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  52. The Mother considered the Student at-risk for internalizing problems but all other composite scores and all but two sub-scores found him to be in the average range. (B-12; Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  53. The school problems rating scale showed the Student to be in the average range. (B-12.)
  54. The Student was considered at-risk by the Parents in the Behavioral Symptoms Index overall and as to half of the sub-scores but the teachers found him to be in the average range in that entire area. (B-12; Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  55. The Student was rated average overall as to adaptive skills with slight at-risk ratings given by the Mother as to functional communication and activities of daily living and by one teacher as to adaptability. (B-12; Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  56. The only two areas that were seen as clinically significant were hyperactivity and withdrawal by the Mother. (B-12.)
  57. It is common for parents and teachers to give different scores in the same areas. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  58. The BRIEF-2 measures executive functioning as broken down into behavioral, emotional and cognitive regulation. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  59. The Parent rated the Student for high levels of difficulty overall and in most areas of executive functioning (except for the behavioral regulation index) while teachers did not give any elevated ratings in the assessment. (B-12; Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  60. Again, differences between home and school ratings are common because students are in different situations in both places which affect their responses to those respective surroundings. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  61. The assessments administered by [REDACTED] were done in accordance with the instructions provided by the developers of the assessments. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  62. The CTOPP-24; Social Language Development Test-Elementary, Normative Update (SLDT-E: NU); Test of Narrative Language, Second Edition (TNL-2); Test of Problem Solving, Third Edition, Elementary (TOPS-3: Elementary) and Autism Spectrum Rating Scales (ASRS) were administered by [REDACTED], Speech-Language Pathologist at Goodwin Elementary School. (B-12; Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  63. [REDACTED] has been a school speech-language pathologist since 2021 and received a bachelor's degree in communicative disorders from the University of Rhode Island and a masters degree in speech-language pathology from Southern Connecticut State University. (B-29; Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  64. [REDACTED] is licensed by the state Department of Public health and certified by the state Department of Education as a speech-language pathologist and has received a Certificate of Clinical Competence in speech-language pathology from the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (B-29; Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  65. The CTOPP-2 measures a student's ability to break down and manipulate small units of language. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  66. The Student's results were mostly average with an above-average score in elision and a below-average score in nonword repetition. (B-12; Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  67. The score on nonword repetition might have been affected by apparent fatigue during that assessment. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  68. The SLDT-E examines four different areas of pragmatic language including nonverbal cues. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  69. The Student was above-average overall on the SDLT-E and all of his sub-scores were average or above-average. (B-12.)
  70. The Student's scores indicated adequate social-language skills and that prior interventions were successful. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  71. The TOPS-3 measures a student's ability to make inferences to solve problems based on pictures shown. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  72. The Student achieved solidly average results on the TOPS-3. (B-12; Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  73. The TNL-2 measures a student's ability to retell stories with accuracy and proper grammar. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  74. The Student was average or above-average on the subtests of the TNL-2 and above-average overall. (B-12.)
  75. The ASRS measures how closely a student's behaviors match those of somebody that is diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  76. The schools use the assessment to gain information and possibly guide classification but it is not a tool to obtain a medical diagnosis. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  77. The assessment uses rating scales filled out by both the parents and teachers. (B-12; Testimony of [REDACTED],)
  78. Both sets of ratings were elevated in unusual behaviors, behavioral rigidity and sensory sensitivity but the Parents' ratings were higher than those of the teachers. (B-12; Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  79. The Parents also provided elevated ratings in self-regulation and attention. (B-12.)
  80. The evaluation indicated that sensory needs were a potential area of challenge for the Student. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
  81. All of the assessments administered by [REDACTED] were administered in accordance with the instructions of the publishers of the assessments. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)

Conclusions of Law and Discussion

1. Was the multidisciplinary reevaluation provided by the District appropriate?

34 C.F.R. §300.304 (b) provides,

Conduct of evaluation. In conducting the evaluation, the public agency must—

  1. Use a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information about the child, including information provided by the parent, that may assist in determining—
    1. Whether the child is a child with a disability under §300.8; and
    2. The content of the child's IEP, including information related to enabling the child to be involved in and progress in the general education curriculum (or for a preschool child, to participate in appropriate activities);
  2. Not use any single measure or assessment as the sole criterion for determining whether a child is a child is a child with a disability and for determining an appropriate educational program for the child; and
  3. Use technically sound instruments that may assess the relative contribution of cognitive and behavioral factors, in addition to physical or developmental factors.

34 C.F.R. §300.304(c) provides,

Other evaluation procedures. Each public agency must ensure that—

  1. Assessments and other evaluation materials used to assess a child under this part—
    1. Are selected and administered so as not to be discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis;
    2. Are provided and administered in the child's native language or other mode of communication and in the form most likely to yield accurate information on what the child knows and can do academically, developmentally, and functionally, unless it is clearly not feasible to so provide or administer;
    3. Are used for the purposes for which the assessments or measures are valid and reliable;
    4. Are administered by trained and knowledgeable personnel; and
    5. Are administered in accordance with any instructions provided by the producer of the assessments.
  2. Assessments and other evaluation materials include those tailored to assess specific areas of educational need and not merely those that are designed to provide a single general intelligence quotient;
  3. Assessments are selected and administered so as best to ensure that if an assessment is administered to a child with impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills, the assessment results accurately reflect the child's aptitude or achievement level or whatever other factors the test purports to measure, rather than reflecting the child's impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills (unless those skills are the factors that the test purports to measure).
  4. The child is assessed in all areas related to the suspected disability, including, if appropriate, health, vision, hearing, social and emotional status, general intelligence, academic performance, communicative status, and motor abilities;
  5. Assessments of children with disabilities who transfer from one public agency to another public agency in the same school year are coordinated with those children's prior and subsequent schools, as necessary and as expeditiously as possible, consistent with §300.301(d)(2) and (e), to ensure prompt completion of full evaluations.
  6. In evaluating each child with a disability under §§300.304 through 300.306, the evaluation is sufficiently comprehensive to identify the child's special education and related service needs, whether or not commonly linked to the disability category in which the child has been classified.
  7. Assessment tools and strategies that provide relevant information that directly assists persons in determining the educational needs of the child are provided.

The Parents make several arguments as to why they consider the evaluation deficient.5 The first is that the Beery VMI was administered a second time fourteen days after the first administration and that the re-administration violated the instructions given by the publisher of the instrument.

The Parents contend that the second administration should have been given thirty days after the first, not fourteen. However, the brief bases that on evidence not in the record. The first evidence that the Parents cite is correspondence subsequent to the hearing between the Parents and an individual in the customer support division of the company publishing the examination. Decisions must be based on evidence in the record, not subsequent conversations which the other party has not had the opportunity to object to (or cross-examine the individual whose unsworn testimony is effectively being offered as evidence).

The brief also cites the Parent effectively arguing on cross examination with the witness as to what the manual provides. Cross-examination questions are not testimony under oath given by the questioner. The manual itself was not placed into evidence and there was no expert testimony as to what the proper procedure was for administration of the examination and the materiality of any potential departure from proper practice. On the basis of the actual evidence in the record, the undersigned Hearing Officer finds the administration of the examination consistent with the publisher's protocols. (Findings of Fact # 12-17.)6

The Parents also note that the description of the Beery VMI contained in the evaluation is actually the description of the BOTS-2 (which was not administered). (Finding of Fact 20.) As this seems to be a minor and obvious copy-and-paste clerical error that did not affect the gathering of data or anybody's ability to understand the results, the undersigned finds that it does not have any significant bearing on the appropriateness of the evaluation.

The Parents raise a number of issues concerning the evaluations that essentially disagree with the narrative portions of the report which discuss the results of the various assessments. Specifically, their brief has sections titled "The Evaluation's Narrative Conclusions Do Not Accurately Reflect What the Standardized Scores Show", "The Evaluation Contains Material Internal Inconsistencies Between the Score Tables and the Narrative" and "The Evaluation Misinterprets Cognitive Data and Fails to Synthesize Findings Across Domains" in which they state that the conclusions drawn in the narrative are not proper interpretations of the test results. However, it is the PPT, not the evaluator that is responsible for determining the identification of a student with a disability and the program that is to be provided to that student. Disagreements with the conclusions and recommendations of the evaluator have no bearing on the appropriateness of the evaluation. Conn. State. Regs. §10-76d-10; E.P. By & Through J.P. vs. Howard County Public School System, 2017 WL 3608180, 21 (D.Md.8/21/17).

The Parents cite 34 C.F.R. § 300.306(c)(1)(i), which provides:

Procedures for determining eligibility and educational need.

  1. In interpreting evaluation data for the purpose of determining if a child is a child with a disability under § 300.8, and the educational needs of the child, each public agency must—
    1. Draw upon information from a variety of sources, including aptitude and achievement tests, parent input, and teacher recommendations, as well as information about the child's physical condition, social or cultural background, and adaptive behavior...

However, that regulation does not pertain to evaluations but rather to the eligibility determination by the PPT. Accordingly, it is not pertinent to the question of the appropriateness of the evaluation itself.

The Parents further claim that the Student was not evaluated in all areas of suspected disability, specifically dyslexia. However, the claim is again largely a criticism of the conclusions in the narrative portion of the report. The District administered the GORT-5, CTOPP-2 and WIAT-4, all of which measured areas which the Parents cite in their brief as being relevant to dyslexia. (Findings of Fact #27 and 62.) The CTOPP-2 and TOWL-4 were added to the evaluation at the request of the Parents. (Finding of Fact #4.) The evaluator concluded from the assessments that reading and fluency were areas of weakness in which the Student needed support. (Findings of Fact #32, 34, 37, 39.) Therefore, the evaluation provided the information necessary for the PPT to make its decisions on the identification and program of the Student.

Finally, the Parents argue that the District failed to meaningfully consider parental input. However, the District added assessments to the evaluation at the request of the Parents. (Finding of Fact #4.) The assessments included the BASC-3, BRIEF-2 and ASRS, all of which include parental rating scales. (Finding of Facts #50-52, 54, 56, 58-59, 75-79.) Again, the Parents' disagreement appears to be with the narrative presentation of the data collected rather than the collection of data itself.

Turning to the criteria for determining whether an evaluation is appropriate, the Student was evaluated in all areas of suspected disability. (Findings of Fact #4, 9, 24, 27, 45, 62.) The evaluations used multiple assessments and did not use any single measure as a sole criterion for making any determination concerning the Student. (Findings of Fact #4, 9, 24, 27, 45, 62.) The assessments were technically sound and administered by trained and knowledgeable personnel. (Findings of Fact 7-8, 25-26, 42-45, 63-64.) The assessments were properly administered. (Findings of Fact 13-17, 19, 40, 61, 81.)

Final Decision and Order

The evaluation provided by the District was appropriate and it is not required to provide an IEE at public espense.

  1. A second hearing date of May 28, 2026 was scheduled but became unnecessary due to the conclusion of the hearing and was cancelled. ↩︎
  2. In the interim, the decision date was extended to April 17, 2026; May 18, 2026 and June 17, 2026. ↩︎
  3. The Parents argue in their brief that the two-week interval was inappropriate and that a 30-day interval should have been used; however, most of what is cited for that proposition is based on materials which were never put into evidence during the course of the hearing. This will be discussed further later in the decision. ↩︎
  4. While the evaluation indicates that the CTOPP-2 was administered by the special education teacher, it is clear from the testimony that it was administered by the speech-language pathologist. ↩︎
  5. A portion of the Parents' brief argues that the request for an IEE was sufficient to trigger the District's obligation to file for due process if it did not wish to agree to fund the IEE. While the District noted that the request was lacking in specificity as to what the Parents disagreed with in the evaluation, it did not argue that the request was ineffective in requiring it to file for due process and defended the evaluation on the merits so there is nothing that needs to be decided pertaining to that issue. ↩︎
  6. It should be noted that both results were noted in the evaluation. (Finding of Fact #19.) ↩︎