Final Decision and Order Case #26-0423

July 30, 2026

Plymouth Board of Education v. Student

Appearing on behalf of the Parent:
Pro Se

Appearing on behalf of the District:
Linda Yoder, Esq.
Ian Saum, Esq.
Shipman & Goodwin LLP
1 Constitution Plaza
Hartford, CT 06103

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

Final Decision And Order

Issues:

Was the District’s speech and language evaluation appropriate?
Was the District’s occupational therapy evaluation appropriate?
Was the District’s psychoeducational evaluation appropriate?
Was the District’s executive functioning/attention evaluation appropriate?
Did the District commit a procedural violation amounting to a denial of FAPE by failing to conduct a neuropsychological evaluation as part of the triennial evaluations?
Did the District commit a procedural violation amounting to a denial of FAPE by failing to conduct an assistive technology evaluation as part of the triennial evaluations?¹

Procedural History:

Case 26-0423 commenced by the District on February 9, 2026. A prehearing conference was held on February 19, 2026. At the prehearing conference, a hearing date was set for May 29, 2026 and the decision date was determined to be March 26, 2026. The hearing was later rescheduled to June 17, 2026 and the decision date extended to August 4, 2026.²

The following witnesses testified for the District:

[REDACTED], School Psychologist at [REDACTED] Elementary School
[REDACTED], Occupational Therapist
[REDACTED], Occupational Therapy Assistant
[REDACTED], Fourth-grade Special Education Teacher
[REDACTED], Speech Pathologist for the District

The following witness testified for the Parent:

[REDACTED], Assistant Superintendent for the District

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

Board Exhibits B-1 through B-22 were entered as full exhibits.

Parent Exhibits P-1 through P-21 and P-25 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:

The Student, whose date of birth is September 2, 2016 is a student entering fifth grade who resides with his parents within the District. (B-7.)
The Student is classified with a primary disability of Specific Learning Disability. (B-7.)
On December 4, 2024, the Planning and Placement Team (PPT) met to conduct an annual review and plan a three-year reevaluation. (B-1.)
The Individualized Education Program (IEP) proposed by the PPT provided that the reevaluation would include Academic Achievement, Cognitive Functioning, Social/Emotional/Behavioral, Fine Motor, Visual Motor and Speech/Language. (B-1.)
No evaluations were discussed other than the ones that were conducted. (Testimony of [REDACTED]; Testimony of [REDACTED].)
The evaluations proposed were comprehensive. (Testimony of [REDACTED]; Testimony of [REDACTED].)
The Parents consented to the reevaluation on January 4, 2025. (B-2.)
The psychological evaluation was conducted by [REDACTED], the school psychologist. (B-2; B-5; Testimony of [REDACTED].)
[REDACTED] attained an associates degree in behavioral science from Naugatuck Valley Community College, a bachelors degree in psychology from Southern Connecticut State University and a sixth-year diploma and masters degree in school psychology from Fairfield University. (B-21; Testimony of [REDACTED].)
[REDACTED] is licensed in school psychology by the State of Connecticut and has served as a school psychologist since 2022. (B-21; Testimony of [REDACTED].)
[REDACTED]’s duties as a school psychologist include the performance of evaluations and she has conducted over 100. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
The evaluation consisted of classroom observations; administration of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fifth Edition (WISC-V) and Behavior Assessment Scale for Children, Third Edition (BASC-3).
The classroom observation showed that the Student did well in structured classroom settings where he was redirected back towards tasks by peer support. (Testimony of [REDACTED]; B-5.)
The WISC-V scores ranged between “very low” and “average”, with the overall intelligence quotient (IQ) being “very low”. (B-5.)
The Student was strongest in Working Memory and weakest in Fluid Reasoning. (B-5.)
The BASC-3 used rating scales performed by both the general and special education teachers and the parents. (B-5.)
The Executive Functioning Index of the BASC showed concerns of both the teachers and parents to be elevated or very elevated in most areas. (B-5.)
The ADHD probability index did not show high levels of ADHD symptoms in a school setting. (B-5.)
The Parent rating scales for emotional/behavioral functioning entirely rated the Student at risk or clinically significant in all areas while the special education teacher found most of the behaviors to reach those levels and the general education teacher found the Student to be average in the majority of areas. (B-5.)
The Student was attentive while the tests were given. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
The purpose of the evaluation was to gather information to meet the Student’s school-based needs, not to provide a medical diagnosis. (Testimony of [REDACTED], B-5.)
Conducting a neuropsychological evaluation was not brought up at the PPT which designed the evaluation. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
A neuropsychological evaluation was not necessary to assess the Student’s school-based needs. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
The assessments were conducted in accordance with the publisher’s instructions. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
The Occupational Therapy evaluation was conducted by [REDACTED] in consultation with [REDACTED]. (Testimony of [REDACTED]; Testimony of [REDACTED]; B-2; B-3.)
[REDACTED] received a bachelors degree in psychology with a certificate in early childhood development from SUNY-Purchase and a masters degree from the University of Southern Maine in occupational therapy and is licensed by the state of Connecticut as an occupational therapist and is registered with the National Board of Occupational Therapy. (Testimony of [REDACTED]; B-20.)
[REDACTED] has practiced as an occupational therapist since 2012 and has performed around 200 evaluations. (Testimony of [REDACTED]; B-20.)
The assessments consisted of the Developmental Test of Visual Perception, 3^rd edition (DTVP-3); the Beery-Buktenka Test of Visual-Motor Integration (VMI) and functional observations. (Testimony of [REDACTED]; B-3.)
The evaluator reviewed the testing protocols before administering the assessments and followed the instructions of the publisher. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
The DTVP is an assessment that evaluates each component of visual perception. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
There are five subtests that comprise the assessment in eye-hand coordination, copying, figure-ground, visual closure and form constancy. (B-3; Testimony of [REDACTED].)
The assessment took place over two 45-minute sessions in a private setting in a familiar classroom and the Student appeared to be comfortable, attentive and engaged. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
All of the subtests of the assessment were administered. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
The majority of the subtests and all of the composite results were “poor” or “very poor”. (B-3.)
The VMI consisted of tests of Visual Motor Integration, Visual Perception and Motor Coordination. (B-3.)
The Student was “below average” or “low average” in all areas. (B-3.)
Overall, the tests showed that visual motor integration, visual perceptual skills and precise fine motor skills are areas of need. (B-3; Testimony of [REDACTED].)
The assessment showed that the best approach for the Student was to target skills of writing, spatial organization and legibility and provide accommodations and assistance to maximize his success. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
Functional observation showed the Student’s gross motor skills to be an area of strength. (B-3; Testimony of [REDACTED].)
The District provides the Student with assistive technology, including speech-to-text, which has helped the Student succeed. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
Assistive technology is an accommodation and an assistive technology evaluation cannot be used to identify a disability. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
An assistive technology evaluation is not necessary to identify an area of need or programming for the Student. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
The evaluation resulted in a recommendation to the PPT of a continuation in direct services with a revision in goals to reflect the findings of the evaluation. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
The Academic Achievement evaluation was conducted by [REDACTED], the special education teacher. (B-2; B-4; Testimony of [REDACTED].)
[REDACTED] received a bachelors degree in elementary education from Keene State College and a masters degree in special education from Central Connecticut State University. (B-19; Testimony of [REDACTED].)
[REDACTED] is certified in K-6 elementary education and comprehensive special education K-12 and has been a teacher since 2007 and a special education teacher since 2014. (B-19; Testimony of [REDACTED].)
[REDACTED] has performed at least 50 evaluations in her career. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
The Academic Achievement evaluation was done by administration of the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, 4^th edition (WIAT-4), which consists of 25 subtests. (B-4.)
[REDACTED] reviewed the testing protocols beforehand, both to ensure that they were followed and that their administration was individualized to the specific student, and followed those protocols. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
The Student was tested over four or five sessions in a room with which he was familiar where there was nobody else other than the teacher. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
Breaks were provided and the Student appeared comfortable. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
All subtests were completed. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
The reading and math composites were both below average and the scores in fluency and decoding tended to be low. (B-4.)
The results showed that the Student did well with listening and speaking but struggles with spelling, math and written expression. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
The results of the evaluation were consistent with what the teacher witnesses in the classroom. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
The Speech/Language Assessment was performed by [REDACTED], the speech/language pathologist. (B-2; B-11.)
[REDACTED] received a bachelors degree in communication disorders from Southern Connecticut State University and a masters degree in speech-language pathology from Katz School of Science and Health at Yeshiva University. (B-22; Testimony of [REDACTED].)
[REDACTED] is certified as a speech-language pathologist by the State of Connecticut and has a Certificate of Clinical Competence from the national governing board for speech pathology and audiology and has been a speech-language pathologist for two years. (B-22; Testimony of [REDACTED].)
[REDACTED] has probably conducted around 100 evaluations. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
The evaluator administered the Oral and Written Language Studies, 2^nd edition (OWLS-2). (B-11; Testimony of [REDACTED].)
The evaluator reviewed the test protocols before administering the assessment and followed those instructions. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
The evaluation was done over 60 minutes in a quiet room. (Testimony of [REDACTED].)
The Student received average scores in that assessment. (B-11; Testimony of [REDACTED].)
The evaluator also based his conclusions on record review and classroom observations. (B-11; Testimony of [REDACTED].)
The evaluator concluded that the Student had overall age-appropriate language skills. (B-1; Testimony of [REDACTED].)

Conclusions Of Law And Discussion:³

1. Was the District’s speech and language evaluation appropriate?

34 C.F.R. §300.304 (b) provides,

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

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);
Not use any single measure or assessment as the sole criterion for determining whether a child is a child with a disability and for determining an appropriate educational program for the child; and
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—

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.
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;
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).
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;
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.
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.
Assessment tools and strategies that provide relevant information that directly assists persons in determining the educational needs of the child are provided.

In the case of the speech and language evaluation, the examiner used technically sound instruments. (Findings of Fact #60 and 64.) He had sufficient knowledge and experience to administer the assessments. (Findings of Fact #56-59.) The assessments were administered in accordance with the publisher’s test protocols. (Finding of Fact #63.)

The Parents’ brief does not discuss the speech-language evaluation at all, the examiner was not cross-examined and no evidence was presented that the evaluation in question was insufficient.

Accordingly, the speech-language evaluation is found to be appropriate.

2. Was the District’s occupational therapy evaluation appropriate?

The occupational therapy evaluation utilized technically sound instruments. (Findings of Fact #28, 30-31, 35, 39.) The examiner had sufficient knowledge and experience to administer the examinations. (Findings of Fact #25-27.) The assessments were administered in accordance with the publisher’s test protocols. (Finding of Fact #29.) The evaluation involved multiple assessments with multiple subtests. (Findings of Fact #28, 31, 33, 35, 39.)

The Parents’ brief backhandedly acknowledges that the occupational therapy examination was appropriate as it states that the evaluation revealed severe visual-motor deficits. While the Parents contend that those findings warrant further evaluation, it would be up to the PPT to make that determination. The purpose of the evaluation is to provide the PPT with the information that it needs for purposes of identification and determination of the programming of a student.

Accordingly, the occupational therapy evaluation is found to be appropriate.

3. Was the District’s psychoeducational evaluation appropriate?

The psychoeducational evaluation utilized technically sound instruments. (Findings of Fact #12, 16.) The examiner had sufficient knowledge and experience to administer the examinations. (Findings of Fact #8-11.) The assessments were administered in accordance with the publisher’s test protocols. (Finding of Fact #24.) The evaluation involved multiple assessments with multiple subtests. (Findings of Fact #12, 16.) The assessment included the opportunity for parental input. (Finding of Fact #16.)

The Parents again state that the evaluation documented challenges that the Student faced, which is an argument that the evaluation was appropriate. How that information would be incorporated into the Student’s IEP or whether further targeted assessments would be conducted would have to be determined by the PPT. The Parents further argue that it was insufficient for the psychologist to complete cognitive testing, rating scales and observation without providing any evidence of what else should be done in a psychoeducational evaluation. In particular, the Parents provided no expert testimony to buttress any argument that an evaluation which appears appropriate on its face and which was performed by knowledgeable experts is somehow insufficient.

Accordingly, the psychoeducational evaluation is found to be appropriate.⁴

4. Was the District’s executive functioning/attention evaluation appropriate?⁵

The academic achievement evaluation utilized technically sound instruments. (Finding of Fact #48.) The examiner had sufficient knowledge and experience to administer the examinations. (Findings of Fact #44-47.) The assessments were administered in accordance with the publisher’s test protocols. (Finding of Fact #49.) The assessment included 25 subtests which were all administered. (Findings of Fact #48, 52.)

The Parents argue that the District “failed to evaluate written expression disability, math disability, processing speed, and executive functioning”. However, they also argue that “WIAT-4 results show extremely low and very low scores across writing and math fluency” and that “The WIAT-4 Identified Severe Academic Deficits”. Obviously, both cannot be true at the same time. The WIAT-4 clearly provided useful information. (Findings of Fact #53-54.) Again, the Parents argue that further evaluation is needed; again, however, it is for the PPT to determine what further assessments may be necessary or what programming should flow from that.

Accordingly, the academic evaluation is found to be appropriate.

5. Did the District commit a procedural violation amounting to a denial of FAPE by failing to conduct a neuropsychological evaluation as part of the triennial evaluations?

The Parents requested an independent neuropsychological evaluation—even though no evaluation was conducted with which they disagreed—on the grounds that one should have been conducted. The PPT determined what areas needed to be evaluated. (Findings of Fact #3-4.) No evaluations were discussed other than the ones written in the IEP. (Finding of Fact #5.) The Parents provided consent for the evaluations. (Finding of Fact #7.) The evaluations were comprehensive. (Finding of Fact #6.)

With respect specifically to a potential neuropsychological evaluation, it was not an idea raised at the PPT. (Finding of Fact #22.) The purpose of the evaluation was to determine the Student’s school-based needs rather than the provision of a medical diagnosis. (Finding of Fact #21.) From the standpoint of determining the Student’s school-based needs there was no need to perform a neuropsychological evaluation. (Finding of Fact #23.)

Accordingly, the District committed no violation in not providing a neuropsychological evaluation.

6. Did the District commit a procedural violation amounting to a denial of FAPE by failing to conduct an assistive technology evaluation as part of the triennial evaluations?

The Parents requested an independent assistive technology evaluation—even though no evaluation was conducted with which they disagreed—on the grounds that one should have been conducted. Much of what was pertinent to the foregoing issue pertains to this one as well. The PPT determined what areas needed to be evaluated. (Findings of Fact #3-4.) No evaluations were discussed other than the ones written in the IEP. (Finding of Fact #5.) The Parents provided consent for the evaluations. (Finding of Fact #7.) The evaluations were comprehensive. (Finding of Fact #6.)

With respect specifically to a potential assistive technology evaluation, the occupational therapy evaluation did in fact identify assistive technology that would be helpful to the Student. (Finding of Fact #40.) As assistive technology is an accommodation, an evaluation in that area cannot be used to identify a disability or areas of need or programming for a student. (Findings of Fact #41-42.)

Accordingly, the District committed no violation in not providing an assistive technology evaluation.

Final Decision And Order:

The evaluations conducted by the District are found to be appropriate and the District has committed no violations in not conducting evaluations beyond those which were conducted. Accordingly, no independent evaluations at public expense are ordered.

¹ The last two issues were raised by the Parents in a Counterclaim filed as an amended pleading to resolve the logical problem that the Parents could not predicate a request for an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) upon disagreement with evaluations that had never been conducted. ↩︎

² In the interim the decision date was extended to April 24, 2026; May 22, 2026 and June 24, 2026. ↩︎

³ It should be noted that all issues in this case involve the appropriateness of the evaluations performed by the District. The Parents’ brief raises issues of Child Find, FAPE and various alleged procedural violations. None of these issues are part of this case. The Parents also demand compensatory education and the ordering of a new PPT which are not remedies in a case only involving evaluations. While the Parents contend that the District violated 34 CFR §300.502(b) in failing to provide an IEE, the District filed for due process, which is all that is required. Further, 34 CFR §300.503 applies to changes in placement, not evaluations, so there is no need to file a prior written notice along with a due process complaint when not providing an IEE. ↩︎

⁴ The Parents argue that the District failed to evaluate social/emotional/behavioral functioning as called for in the IEP. This evaluation obviously covered that ground. (Findings of Fact #12-13, 16-17, 19.) ↩︎

⁵ The issue was phrased this way because, according to the Complaint, the Parents specifically requested an independent evaluation in executive functioning/attention. Read literally, this would imply an invalid IEE request as there was not a specific executive functioning/attention evaluation that was conducted with which the Parents could disagree. As the Parents obviously disagree with the Academic Achievement evaluation and are seeking an independent evaluation in that area, the appropriateness of that assessment will be analyzed under this heading. (It should also be noted that executive functioning and attention were analyzed under the heading of the psychoeducational evaluation.) ↩︎