Connecticut State Department of Education

Final Decision and Order Case #26-0449

September 1, 2026

Student v. Region 1 Board of Education

Appearing on behalf of Student:
Student’s Parents, Pro Se

Appearing on behalf of the Board of Education:
Attorney Erin Shaffer
Shipman & Goodwin LLP
One Constitution Plaza
Hartford, CT 06103-1919

Appearing before:
Janis C. Jerman
Hearing Officer

Final Decision And Order

Procedural Posture

Student’s Parent filed a Request for Due Process Hearing dated February 13, 2026 pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The Board of Education (BOE) received the Request for Hearing on February 13. The undersigned Hearing Officer was appointed to this case on February 19. The 30-day resolution period ends March 15 and the original deadline to mail the final decision and order is April 29.

At the February 27 telephonic prehearing conference, Student’s Mother appeared on behalf of Student and Attorney Shaffer appeared on behalf of BOE.

The following issues were identified for hearing:

  1. Did the Board of Education fail to provide Student with a free appropriate public education from February 13, 2024 to the end of the 2023-24 school year, the 2024-25 school year and/or the 2025-26 school year by:
    1. failing to evaluate Student in all areas of suspected disability;
    2. violating its Child Find obligation to Student;
    3. failing to issue legally sufficient Prior Written Notice; and/or
    4. failing to find Student eligible for special education and related services?
  2. If the answer to Issue One is affirmative, what shall be the remedy?
  3. If the answer to Issue One is affirmative, is Talcott Mountain Academy an appropriate placement for Student?
  4. If the answer to Issue Three is affirmative, shall Student be placed at Talcott Mountain Academy at public expense?

On March 3, Student’s Mother filed a Request for Clarification of the Issues, seeking to ensure that the scope of the Request for Hearing is accurately reflected in the issues with regard to the claim that BOE improperly relied on Section 504 in lieu of conducting an evaluation and determining eligibility consistent with the IDEA and with regard to the claimed remedies.

The jurisdiction of a Hearing Officer appointed under 34 C.F.R. § 300.500 et seq. and Conn. Agencies Regs. § 10-76h-1 et seq. does not include the determination of legal claims under Section 504 unless such determination is necessary to resolve the claims under IDEA. The Request for Hearing alleges that BOE relied on Section 504 instead of conducting an evaluation and determining eligibility under IDEA. It is not necessary to determine any claims under Section 504 to determine whether BOE failed to provide Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) by failing to evaluate in all areas of suspected disability and failing to find Student eligible for special education and related services. Jurisdiction over Section 504 claims is declined as it is not necessary to resolve the IDEA claims which are expressly stated in Issue One.

Issue Two addresses the remedy adequately. No restatement of the issues was necessary to address the Request for Clarification.

The parties participated in a resolution meeting on March 4 without reaching resolution. Hearing was scheduled for April 3. On March 9, BOE’s Attorney requested that the April 3 hearing be postponed as it is a state and BOE holiday. The hearing was postponed to April 8.

On March 24, Student’s Mother requested guidance on resolving outstanding FERPA requests. A Hearing Officer appointed under 34 C.F.R. § 300.500 et seq. and Conn. Agencies Regs. § 10-76h-1 et seq. does not have jurisdiction over issues related to FERPA or BOE document inspection/access policies. The parties were encouraged to work collaboratively to comply with applicable laws and orders regarding exchange of documents and were granted the opportunity to request another prehearing conference to address relevance of and necessity for documents to ensure that each party has a meaningful opportunity to exercise their due process hearing rights.

March 27, Student’s Mother requested postponement of the April 8 hearing to give her time to review the voluminous documents that BOE produced in response to her FERPA requests and prepare for hearing. BOE’s Attorney objected to the request for postponement. After fully considering the parties’ positions, the request was granted. Hearings were scheduled for April 22 and 28.

On April 8, Student’s Mother raised outstanding issues regarding exchange of documents and coordination of witnesses and requested that the April 22 hearing be postponed. The issues related to exchange of documents and coordination of witnesses were addressed by the Hearing Officer in writing. After fully considering the parties’ positions, the request to postpone the April 22 hearing was denied.

The Request for Hearing and the Joint Stipulation of Uncontested Facts were marked, respectively, exhibits HO-1 and HO-2. The status of the parties’ offered exhibits is listed in the Appendix.

At the April 22 hearing, BOE’s Attorney and Student’s Mother each made an opening statement and the following witnesses were questioned and subject to cross-examination under oath: NonResident School’s Fourth Grade Teacher, NonResident School’s Third Grade Teacher, and NonResident School’s School Social Worker. On the record at the April 22 hearing, BOE’s Attorney requested an extension of the deadline to mail the final decision and order to accommodate a hearing on May 14. After fully considering the parties’ positions, the request was granted on the record. The deadline to mail the final decision and order was extended 30 days to May 29 and a hearing was scheduled for May 14.

At the April 28 hearing, the following witnesses were questioned and subject to cross-examination under oath: BOE’s Occupational Therapist, Neighborhood School School Psychologist, and NonResident School’s Principal. At the May 14 hearing, the following witnesses were questioned and subject to cross-examination under oath: BOE’s Director of Pupil Services and Private Psychologist. On the record at the May 14 hearing, BOE’s Attorney requested extension of the deadline to mail the final decision and order to accommodate a hearing on July 7. After fully considering the request, it was granted on the record. The deadline to mail the final decision and order was extended 30 days to August 18 and hearing was scheduled for July 7.

At the July 7 hearing, the following witnesses were questioned and subject to cross-examination under oath: Student’s Parents’ Advocate, Student’s Father, Private Counselor, and Student’s Mother. Hearings concluded on July 7. On the record at the July 7 hearing, the parties requested an extension of the deadline to mail the final decision and order to accommodate a briefing schedule. After fully considering the parties’ positions, the request was granted and the deadline to mail the final decision and order extended to September 17. The parties timely submitted post-hearing briefs on August 7.

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 related regulations, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f) and related regulations, and in accordance with the Connecticut Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA).

Findings Of Relevant Fact

Qualifications Of Witnesses
  1. BOE’s Director of Pupil Services (Director) holds a Bachelor’s degree in special education/early childhood/elementary education, a Master’s degree in special education, and a Sixth-year certificate in administration and supervision. She is certified in Connecticut for Comprehensive Special Education PreK-12 (065), Elementary Education K-6 (013), Early Childhood Education PreK-K (008), and Administration and Supervision (092). She has served as Director for three years and previously served as BOE’s special education supervisor for 1.5 years. As Director, she is responsible for special education in thie six elementary schools and one high school that make up the district and for allocating resources, which includes staffing and related services for students who are identified as having special education needs, coordinating paraprofessionals, budgeting, evaluating staff, and everything that goes into making sure that students in special education have access to the general curriculum. (Exh. B-59; Testimony of Director)
  2. NonResident School’s Principal (Principal) holds a Bachelor’s degree in psychology/special education/elementary education, a Master’s degree in elementary education, and a Sixth-year certification in educational leadership. She is certified in Connecticut for Elementary Education K-6 (013), Comprehensive Special Education K-12 (165) and Intermediate Administration and Supervision (092). She has served as NonResident School’s Principal for three years where she is responsible for evaluating teachers, overseeing students’ educational timeline from kindergarten through eighth grade, participating as the administrator on data, MTSS, and Section 504 teams and PPTs, and running the building. She previously worked for another district for 20 years serving as assistant principal, ELA teacher, and elementary teacher. (Exh. B-60; Testimony of Principal)
  3. NonResident School’s Third Grade Teacher (3rd Grade Teacher) holds a Bachelor’s degree in elementary education and a Connecticut Initial Educator Certificate for grades 1-6. She has worked for NonResident School for three years and has previous experience as a substitute teacher within the district. (Exh. B-63; Testimony of 3rd Grade Teacher)
  4. NonResident School’s Fourth Grade Teacher (4th Grade Teacher) holds a Bachelor’s degree and Master’s degree in early childhood education (PreK-6). She has worked for NonResident School for more than twenty years and has taught fourth and fifth grade, K-8 math intervention, and third grade reading and spelling and fourth grade writing. She is state certified to teach PreK-6 general education. (Exh. B-64; Testimony of 4th Grade Teacher)
  5. NonResident School’s School Social Worker (Social Worker) holds a Bachelor’s degree in psychology and Master’s degrees in counseling and human services and social work. She is a licensed Master’s level social worker with an endorsement (071) for school social work. She joined NonResident School in August 2025. She previously worked as a social worker in another school district and as an Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) therapist. As a school social worker, she responds to classrooms when students are dysregulated or showing strong emotional outbursts, conducts one-on-one and small group sessions with students, provides psychoeducation for parents and students, and serves as Section 504 case manager. She is familiar with Student having served as his Section 504 case manager and working with him daily on movement breaks. (Exh. B-61; Testimony of Social Worker)
  6. Neighborhood School School Psychologist (School Psychologist) holds an undergraduate degree in psychology and philosophy, a Master’s degree in psychology/counseling, an advanced degree in school psychology, and a Doctorate degree in educational psychology. She has worked as BOE’s school psychologist since 1989. She is nationally and state certified as a school psychologist. As a school psychologist, she conducts educational evaluations, works with students on different interventions, works with parents and staff, develops programs, counsels students, and participates in PPT meetings where she reviews evaluations, hears concerns of parents and teachers, and helps determine further evaluations or steps in the process. She conducts assessments for cognitive, intellectual, behavioral, social, emotional, memory, and visual motor functioning. (Exh. B-62; Testimony of School Psychologist)
  7. BOE’s Occupational Therapist (Occupational Therapist) holds a Bachelor’s degree in health studies and a Master’s degree in occupational therapy. She has ten years’ experience as a school-based occupational therapist. (Exh. B-65)
  8. Private Psychologist holds a Bachelor’s degree in psychology with a minor in Spanish, a Master’s degree in counseling psychology, and a Doctorate in school psychology with a minor in research and statistics. She is a licensed psychologist in Colorado. She founded a private practice specializing in evaluating and treating twice exceptional children. She is a former educator and worked for more than twenty years as a school psychologist, mental health specialist, and teacher. She consults virtually with families all over the world to help make recommendations for twice exceptional students. She does not diagnose children without meeting them. (Exh. S-62; Testimony of Private Psychologist)
  9. Private Counselor is a licensed professional counselor at the Center for Youth and Families (CYF). She has worked with children on the Autism spectrum for twenty years. She is Student’s outpatient clinician at CYF. (Testimony of Private Counselor)
  10. Student’s Parents’ Advocate (Advocate) supports families as a non-attorney special education advocate. She supports hundreds of families across the United States. She has not met Student in person and has not observed him in school. (Testimony of Advocate)
Background
  1. Student is eight years old and resides within the jurisdiction of BOE’s school district. (Exh. HO-2)
  2. Student is a bright, sensitive, complex child. He has always been a voracious reader, has a vocabulary that is beyond others, and loves numbers and learning. Student is very social and relates more naturally to older peers. Student is hyper aware of inequity, is a rule follower, has difficulty with changes in routine, and is afraid of being alone. (Testimony of Student’s Father, Student’s Mother)
  3. BOE does not dispute that Student is twice exceptional in that he has diagnosed disabilities and has a very high IQ. (Testimony of Director)
  4. BOE’s district consists of seven individual school districts, six elementary schools, and one regional high school. Each elementary school within the district has its own board of education and is managed by BOE’s Central Office, which also provides special education support to the elementary schools. (Exh. HO-2)
  5. Neighborhood School and NonResident School fall under a different board of education, both of which are part of BOE’s district for purposes of special education. (Testimony of Director)
  6. BOE provides special education staff, including teachers and paraeducators, and related services staff, including occupational therapy, physical therapy, and speech language pathologists to the elementary schools. BOE is also responsible for testing and eligibility determinations for all the elementary schools, which include middle school grades, and the high school. (Testimony of Director, Principal)
  7. BOE meets with special services staff at district schools weekly to talk about how students are doing. They discuss every child every five weeks on a rotating basis. They discuss academic, social emotional, and behavioral data and needs to stay aware of students who may be struggling and need intervention. If a student’s situation arises to the level that they are not progressing in the general education curriculum, BOE starts talking about referring them for evaluation to determine if they are eligible for special education. (Testimony of Principal, Director)
  8. Student’s designated elementary school is Neighborhood School. (Exh. HO-2)
  9. Student attended Neighborhood School for kindergarten during the 2022-23 school year. Recognizing his advanced abilities, Student’s teacher moved him to the first-grade math, science, and social studies cohorts. His end-of-year progress report indicates that he exceeds or is proficient in all academic areas and work habits and social skills. His teacher noted that he is social and enjoys many friendships and is eager and motivated to learn. He was absent 32 times during the school year. (Exh. B-18)
  10. Beginning in kindergarten and through November 2025, Student attended a private program on Fridays during the school year. BOE excuses those absences if the student writes a report or gives a presentation about the experience. (Testimony of Student’s Mother, Principal)
2023-24 School Year
  1. Student attended Neighborhood School for first grade during the 2023-24 school year. He was in a combination first/second grade classroom. (Exh. B-10)
  2. Student’s teacher allowed Student to continue with the second-grade cohort for math, science, and social studies. (Testimony of Student’s Mother)
  3. At the end of the first trimester, Student’s teacher commented that Student is motivated and always tries his best, is able to read and comprehend advanced texts with ease, loves to write informational stories about topics he knows a lot about, has made great progress in letter formation, is confident in his work in math and able to explain his thinking so that others can understand his strategy, is friendly with all students, and is a great contributor to the classroom. (Exh. B-18, S-43a)
  4. On January 11, 2024, Student’s Mother emailed Student’s teacher and Neighborhood School principal to notify them that Student has been feeling really frustrated about school; feels like his teachers don’t think he is smart; has begged his parents to not send him back to school after the break; is worried that the children he enjoys doing classwork with are moving on to third grade next year; and feels like he has no real friends in his grade. She stated that it is a major battle to get out the door every morning. Student’s Mother asked to have him tested to get “a real baseline sense of where he is intellectually and academically.” (Exh. B-1; Testimony of Student’s Mother)
  5. On January 17, 2024, Student’s teacher responded that BOE will conduct mid-year assessments in January, Student has made gains, based on the data she will move him into a higher level reading group, she will keep Student’s Mother updated, and they will meet to go over the data. (Exh. B-1; Testimony of Student’s Mother)
  6. On January 28, 2024, Student’s Mother emailed Neighborhood School’s principal notifying her that, at Student’s recent well-child visit the healthcare provider highly encouraged Student’s Parents to have Student tested to see if he falls in the gifted category; that he needs a PPT test; gifted children’s academic and social/emotional needs are different; and Student is worried about the next school year. (Exh. B-2; Testimony of Student’s Mother)
  7. School Psychologist reached out to Student’s Mother to discuss the PPT request. Student’s Mother shared her concerns about Student’s stress, anxiety and school refusal. (Exh. B-5; Testimony of Student’s Mother)
  8. Neighborhood School’s principal responded to Student’s Mother’s January 28, 2024 indicating that they hold PPT meetings on Wednesdays and that the next available date is February 14, 2024. (Exh. B-3)
  9. Director had never previously dealt with a question about a gifted and talented referral or a “straight gifted and talented evaluation.” BOE called the State Department of Education because they did not know how to handle it. They were advised to use the same paperwork as for a special education referral and document it as gifted and talented. The State said to “just be clear that it was a gifted and talented referral.” (Testimony of Director)
  10. On January 31, 2024, BOE provided Student’s Parents notice of a PPT meeting scheduled for February 14, 2024. The purpose of the meeting was to review a referral to special education and consider/plan an initial evaluation. Student’s Parents, Neighborhood School’s principal, general education teacher, special education teacher, and school psychologist were invited to the meeting. A copy of the Procedural Safeguards were included with the notice. (Exh. B-4, B-8; Testimony of Student’s Mother)
  11. On February 5, 2024, Student’s Mother emailed BOE’s then-superintendent and assistant superintendent indicating that Student is incredibly bored and frustrated at school; feels like his teachers don’t think he is smart enough to do harder work; comes home in tears; hates school; feels like a black sheep at school; and is stressed out. She stated that she can’t let him languish academically or socially and expects that the PPT meeting will lead to comprehensive testing. (Exh. B-5; Testimony of Student’s Mother)
  12. On February 7, 2024, BOE’s then-superintendent responded and indicated that Student will be assessed for gifted and talented status, which will help Neighborhood School’s principal support Student’s educational programming. (Exh. B-5)
  13. On February 12, 2024, Student’s Mother emailed Neighborhood School’s principal to ask for more information about the scope of the PPT meeting and whether Student’s Parents can discuss their concerns or whether it will be focused on test planning. She noted that Student is having a “really, really hard time and his anxiety about school is getting worse by the day.” Neighborhood School’s principal responded that she will share the information with support staff to make a plan to support Student at school with his social and emotional needs and invited Student’s Mother to call her to discuss prior to the PPT meeting. Student’s Mother again shared that Student is “over the top stressed” about being away from his friends next year, is frustrated with the pace of classroom work, and gets outright angry when he opens his math homework and that she is concerned about his emotional health and the daily negotiation to coax him to go to school. (Exh. B-7; Testimony of Student’s Mother)
  14. On February 13, 2024, Student’s Primary Care Physician (PCP) indicated that she was in the process of assessing Student for social anxiety, learning needs/enrichment, and anxiety response and excused Student from school February 14-28, 2024 as they determine the best supports and needs for Student. (Exh. S-4; Testimony of Student’s Mother)
  15. At the February 14, 2024 PPT meeting, Student’s Parents shared information about Student’s intellectual strengths; expressed concerns about Student becoming panicked, distressed, and increasingly unable to tolerate school; brought samples of books and math work that Student chose for fun; and explained that Student’s PCP encouraged them to raise concerns about anxiety and possible Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), ADHD, and fine motor concerns. Student’s Parents left the February 14, 2024 PPT meeting thinking that Student would be comprehensively evaluated for academic and intellectual abilities and disability-related concerns. (Testimony of Student’s Mother)
  16. On February 14, 2024, Student’s Parents signed consent for intellectual/cognitive functioning and academic assessments as part of an initial evaluation to determine eligibility for special education and related services. (Exh. B-6; Testimony of Student’s Mother)
  17. There is no record of meeting or PWN for the February 14, 2024 PPT. (Testimony of Director, Student’s Mother)
  18. Director is not clear on whether the BOE team knew the proper procedure regarding PWN for a gifted and talented evaluation. (Testimony of Director)
  19. On February 23, 2024, Student’s Mother again shared her concerns about Student’s frustration and growing anger about school in the mornings and evenings. (Exh. B-9)
  20. In March 2024, School Psychologist conducted a psychoeducational evaluation of Student. She noted that testing was requested to determine if classification of gifted and/or talented is evident. The evaluation consisted of administration of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children 5th Edition (WISC-V) and clinical interview. (Exh. B-10; Testimony of School Psychologist)
  21. The psychoeducational evaluation report noted the following results on the WISC-V:
    1. Student’s performance on the Verbal Comprehension Index was extremely strong for his age and emerged as a relative strength. His performance on verbal comprehension tasks was particularly strong when compared to performance on tasks involving processing and evaluating visual spatial information and using logic to solve problems. Goodsell noted that this suggests he may understand information more easily when it is presented in a verbal rather than visual format.
    2. Student’s performance on the Visual Spatial Index was “exceptional for his age” and indicates a well-developed capacity to apply spatial reasoning and analyze visual details. His performance in this area was weak in relation to his performance on language-based tasks.
    3. Student’s performance on the Fluid Reasoning subtests was “diverse” but overall extremely strong for his age. Goodsell noted that Student’s “pattern of strengths and weaknesses suggest that he may currently experience relative difficulty applying logical reasoning skills to visual information, but may have a relatively strong ability to verbalize meaningful concepts.”
    4. Student also exhibited “diverse” performance on the Working Memory Index but his overall performance was, again, exceptional for his age and, again, a relative weakness when compared to his performance on language-based tasks.
    5. Student also exhibited “diverse” performance on Processing Speed Index but overall was strong for his age. Again, although his performance on processing speed tasks was very high for his age, it was weaker than his performance on language-based tasks. (Exh. B-10)
  22. During the evaluation, Student presented as pleasant, curious, and at ease. He was very engaged. School Psychologist thought he was an enjoyable youngster and that it was a positive experience. In her report, School Psychologist made recommendations for continuing to build Student’s skills and provide ongoing enrichment opportunities. (Exh. B-10; Testimony of School Psychologist)
  23. In March 2024, Special Education Teacher conducted an academic evaluation of Student over three sessions to determine present level of academic achievement. As part of the evaluation, she administered the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test 4th Edition (WIAT-IV). Student scored in the extremely high range for reading, mathematics, and sentence composition composites, high average for written expression, and average for writing fluency. (Exh. B-11)
  24. School Psychologist and Special Education Teacher reviewed their evaluations with Student’s Parents prior to the next PPT meeting. (Testimony of Student’s Mother)
  25. A PPT meeting was scheduled for March 20, 2024. The March 12, 2024 notice indicated that the purpose of the meeting was to review evaluation and determine eligibility. The March 18, 2024 notice stated the purpose as “gifted and talented.” A copy of the Procedural Safeguards were included with the March 18, 2024 notice. Student’s Parents, Neighborhood School’s principal, general education teacher, special education teacher, and School Psychologist were invited to the meeting. (Exh. B-12. B-13; Testimony of Student’s Mother)
  26. At the March 20, 2024 PPT meeting, Neighborhood School principal stated that Student’s recent tests showed his extraordinary capacity, BOE does not provide gifted services, and due to new state-mandated ELA curriculum Student will not be moving to the third-grade classroom the following year. BOE connected Student’s Parents with the social worker for support around Student’s anxiety and suggested that, if they still had disability-related concerns, they could obtain an outside neuropsychological evaluation. (Testimony of Student’s Mother)
  27. At the March 20, 2024 PPT meeting, Student’s teachers reported that he is very bright and engaged in school. Student was identified as a gifted Student. It was BOE’s job to identify a gifted student and to support them as best as they could but not to provide a gifted program. (Testimony of School Psychologist)
  28. There is no record of meeting or PWN for the March 20, 2024 PPT meeting. (Testimony of Director, Student’s Mother)
  29. At the end of the second trimester, Student’s teacher commented that Student is dedicated and motivated to learn, is friendly to all students, loves to read and is able to read texts beyond his grade level, is working on comprehension of advanced texts, is an enthusiastic participant in math, is always willing to share his ideas and thought processes, sometimes needs reminders to focus on his work rather than his friends, and is working on ensuring that his handwriting is his best. (Exh. B-18, S-43a)
  30. On April 5, 2024, Student’s Mother reached out to Neighborhood School’s principal to ask whether there has been any progress with plans for Student and she noted that Student was starting to spiral again, saying that he hated school, and that his anxiety about next year is persistent. Neighborhood School’s principal invited Student’s Parents to meet with her the following week. (Exh. B-14; Testimony of Student’s Mother)
  31. On April 11. 2024, Student Parents wrote to Neighborhood School’s principal to express concern about sustained academic rigor for Student and provide BOE with numerous studies regarding placement of gifted children. They noted that Student’s “aptitude and maturity have allowed him to excel and have become foundational points of pride and identity for him…While he is not generally excited about school, he still takes great pride in his achievements.” (Exh. B-15; Testimony of Student’s Mother)
  32. On April 15, 2024, Student’s Parents again expressed their frustration with Student’s program, his ability to be challenged with higher level work among peers of similar intellect, and his ability to progress socially and academically. They stated that Student is finally being given more appropriate work, seems happy and content right now, and is okay other than his anxiety about next school year. (Exh. B-15, S-8; Testimony of Student’s Mother)
  33. On April 21, 2024, Neighborhood School’s principal responded that a new Benchmark curriculum will provide lots of opportunities to differentiate instruction for below-level and above-level learners; the plan is to move Student to second grade in the next school year; and provide a compacted math curriculum that will be data drive specifically for Student and still allow him to work among his peers. She also stated that current state regulations do not mandate schools to provide services to gifted students but they will do their best to offer Student extra enrichment opportunities. (Exh. B-15; Testimony of Student’s Mother)
  34. On April 29, 2024, Student’s Mother notified Neighborhood School’s principal that she was investigating whether NonResident School can better meet Student’s needs. She stated that most of Student’s learning needs, but not his social/emotional needs, can be met with Neighborhood School’s proposal. (Exh. B-16; Testimony of Student’s Mother)
  35. On May 20, 2024, Student’s Mother emailed Neighborhood School social worker that Student’s stress level about next year has been really high; Student does not want to change schools or stay in the first/second-grade classroom at Neighborhood School next year; Student has always really struggled accepting things that don’t make logical sense in his mind; NonResident School will accept Student and are able to fluidly move him between classrooms to meet his academic needs. (Exh. S-8; Testimony of Student’s Mother)
  36. At the end of the third trimester, Student’s teacher commented that Student is dedicated and motivated to learn, is able to read above grade level texts, is working on answering inference questions about books to support his abilities, is very comfortable with addition and subtraction and shows interest in fractions and multiplication, has really improved his writing, and brings much joy with his silly personality. (Exh. B-18)
  37. Student‘s end of year progress report indicates that he exceeds or is proficient in all subject areas. He was absent 21 times and tardy once during the school year. (Exh. B-18)
2024-25 School Year
  1. NonResident School is a small setting with fewer than 100 students from kindergarten to eighth gade. (Testiony of Principal)
  2. NonResident School does not provide transportation or fee-free counseling services to non-resident tuition students. For students who are eligible for services under the IDEA or Section 504, the district of residence remains responsible for the provision of FAPE. (Exh. B-19, B-35; Testimony of Principal)
  3. Student enrolled as a non-resident, out-of-district tuition student at NonResident School for the 2024-25 school year. (Exh. B-20; Testimony of Principal, Student’s Mother)
  4. NonResident School was concerned about Student’s absences, which could result in his enrollment as a tuition student being revoked. Student’s Parents and Principal agreed that Student would attend the private program on only twelve Fridays in the first half of the school year for continuity as he transitioned to NonResident School and to ensure he did not exceed the absence policy. (Exh. B-33; Testimony of Student’s Mother, Principal)
  5. On September 3, 2024, Student’s Mother emailed Principal that Student has a lot of anxiety about school; she barely got him out the door to school that morning; Student is super social and needs to feel part of a group; he doesn’t do well with feeling left out; he needs to interact with children of similar intellect; he doesn’t need more work, just different work. She requested that Student be bumped to the third-grade classroom for math, reading, and Fundations and remain in the second-grade classroom for all other things. (Exh. S-10; Testimony of Student’s Mother)
  6. In September 2024, NonResident School administered benchmark assessments to Student to determine his mastery. (Exh. S-9; Testimony of Student’s Mother)
  7. In September 2024, Student was rated as low risk in academics and some risk in social and emotional domains, with an overall assessment of low risk. (Exh. S-30)
  8. Student began to participate in the third-grade classroom for academics in the mornings and then return to the second-grade classroom for music, art, physical education, and social studies. (Exh. B-20; Testimony of 3rd Grade Teacher, Principal, Student’s Mother)
  9. Sometimes, early in the school year, Student was silly and would giggle and it would stand out. 3rd Grade Teacher attributed it to Student being younger than his classmates and being in a new setting. (Testimony of 3rd Grade Teacher)
  10. By October 2024, Student was spending most of his time in the third-grade classroom. He continued to spend some time with second-grade peers to have those friendships and for social concerns. (Testimony of 3rd Grade Teacher)
  11. Student had a smooth transition to the third-grade classroom. He seemed excited and ready to learn, worked well with his peers, and developed friendships. Student did not express any concerns or anxiety to 3rd Grade Teacher about going to the third-grade classroom. 3rd Grade Teacher did not observe anxiety from him at school. (Testimony of 3rd Grade Teacher)
  12. On October 7, 2024, Student’s third-grade teacher notified Student’s Parents that Student was doing a wonderful job settling into the third-grade classroom, is focused on learning, participates in class discussions and works well with his peers. Student’s Mother responded that Student reports feeling happy and comfortable during his third-grade mornings, appreciates the challenge, and enjoys his interactions in the classroom. Student’s Mother wrote there are no concerns at the moment. (Exh. B-20; Testimony of Third Grade Teacher)
  13. On December 10, 2024, Student’s Mother shared with NonResident School staff that the family is happy with their experience at NonResident School so far; that during Student’s annual physical, the pediatric nurse practitioner wanted to look deeper into possible ADHD, ASD, and sensory processing issues and asked staff to complete an assessment for Student; and Student has been unraveling regularly at the end of his school days and feels that everything at school moves so slowly. (Exh. B-21; Testimony of Student’s MOther)
  14. In January 2025, Student was rated as some risk in the emotional domain and low risk in academics, social, and overall. (Exh. S-30)
  15. On January 16, 2025, Student’s PCP issued a note indicating that Student was diagnosed with anxiety disorder of childhood and that due to his very high intelligence, challenges with social cues and interactions, repetitive behaviors, sensory seeking, fixation on routine and initial CAST screening positive, she was referring him for further evaluation for ASD. She asked that the school team work on having options for him to help regulate so that coming home after school is less stressful. She noted that Student’s great desire to follow school expectations results in significant anxiety and great sensory needs when he returns home from school. Student’s Mother provided the note to NonResident School and received no formal response, evaluation plan, or meeting scheduled. (Exh. S-12; Testimony of Student’s Mother)
  16. On March 24, 2025, Student’s pediatrician issued a report indicating that upon referral by Student’s PCP she evaluated Student on February 6 and March 6, 2025. The evaluation consisted of developmental history, parent interview, Student interview and observation, physical exam, and administration of the Social Responsiveness Scale 2nd Edition (SRS-2) (teacher and parent ratings), BASC-3 (teacher and parent ratings), and Childhood Autism Rating Scale 2-HF (CARS-2). The evaluation report notes that Student’s teacher noted no areas of concern on the BASC-3 and that on the SRS-2 Student was within normal range for behavior at school. She diagnosed Student with ASD, sensory processing delays and possible fine motor disorder. She recommended genetics testing, occupational therapy assessment, consideration of ABA treatment, evaluation for Section 504 accommodations, consider speech language evaluation, practice and facilitate social skills, sensory breaks, participation in extracurricular activities for opportunities to develop social skills, and counseling and support to work on emotional challenges. (Exh. S-14; Testimony of Student’s Mother)
  17. On April 21, 2025 Student’s Parents notified NonResident School that Student was diagnosed with high functioning ASD and that he continues to express feelings of boredom and frustration around school and has started having big emotional outbursts at home regarding school. Student’s Mother also requested that Student be allowed to sit at his desk or on a floor chair or cushion during floor time and noted that he is sensitive to unexpected touch; advance notice for fire drills because he gets stressed by unexpected changes in routine; more opportunities for movement; and opportunities for him to move ahead through the curriculum. The following day, Principal responded with BOE’s initial efforts to address Student’s Mother’s requests. (Exh. B-23; Testimony of Principal, Student’s Mother)
  18. On April 25, 2025, NonResident School’s then-social worker emailed Student’s Mother about her efforts in addressing with Student the difficult mornings he has been having along with stressors he is feeling about school. (Exh. S-48a)
  19. On May 19, 2025, Student began individual, family, and social skills group therapy at CYF. He took a break from that therapy for a few months while he received in-home services and then returned to CYF. (Exh. S-22, S-35b; Testimony of Private Counselor, Student’s Mother)
  20. Private Counselor did not observe Student in the school setting or communicate with the school team. (Testimony of Private Counselor)
  21. On May 19, 2025, Student’s Mother emailed NonResident School’s social worker to confirm a time to meet. She indicated that she was trying to understand the differences between Section 504 and an IEP and noted that Student’s pediatrician suggested an IEP perhaps in addition to Section 504. (Exh. S-15; Testimony of Student’s Mother)
  22. On May 19, 2025, NonResident School provided Student’s Parents notice of a Section 504 meeting scheduled for May 30, 2025 to review referral and, if applicable, consider evaluation, determine Section 504 eligibility, and develop Section 504 plan. (Exh. B-24, B-25, S-15; Testimony of Principal, Student’s Mother)
  23. In May 2025, NonResident School’s then-social worker rated Student as having strengths in cooperative with others, makes/maintains friendships, and participates in class. The second-grade teacher rated makes/maintains friendships, and participates in class as strengths. 3rd Grade Teacher rated him as having strengths in motivated self-starter and attentive in class. The social worker and 3rd Grade Teacher both rated difficulty adjusting to changes in routines as an area of improvement. Student was rated as some risk in the emotional domain and low risk in academics, social, and overall. (Exh. S-30)
  24. 3rd Grade Teacher attended the May 30, 3025 Section 504 meeting and shared Student’s academic strengths, specific things he was interested in, how he learns, and how to best support him. She noted that Student could improve his handwriting as some days it would be very faint, difficult to read, or written in an interesting font. She recommended keeping an eye on his handwriting to determine whether he was just being creative or needed to know how to write properly. (Exh. S-30; Testimony of 3rd Grade Teacher, Student’s Mother)
  25. At the May 30 meeting, the team determined Student was eligible for a Section 504 plan and developed a plan that included accommodations, including alternative seating as needed, access to fidgets and movement breaks as needed, physical activity during indoor recess, academic enrichment, notice of advance change in schedule, consult with school social worker as needed, consult with occupational therapist with focus on sensory processing, regulation strategies and evaluate for fine motor skills. (Exh. B-24, B-25; Testimony of Principal, Student’s Mother)
  26. In June 2025, Student’s Parents obtained a neuropsychological evaluation of Student by a doctor board-certified in clinical neuropsychology to assess his current cognitive and emotional functioning. The evaluation consisted of administration of WISC-V, Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System (D-KEFS), Rey Complex Figure Test (RCFT), California Verbal Learning Test – Children’s version (CVLT-C), Dot Counting Test (DCT), BASC-3 (parent rating scales), NICHQ Vanderbilt Assessment Scale (parent information) and Gilliam Autism Rating Scale 3rd Edition (GARS-3); and clinical interview with Student and Student’s Mother. The evaluation did not include teacher rating scales or interview. (Exh. B-26)
  27. The neuropsychological evaluation report noted the following results:
    1. Student’s performance on the Verbal Comprehension, Visual Spatial, Fluid Reasoning, Working Memory, and Processing Speed indices on the WISC-V were all extremely high, putting him in the top 99%.
    2. Student’s performance on tests of executive functioning (WISC-V, D-KEFS, RCFT) was entirely within normal limits. The report noted that Student’s Mother rated Student as having clinically significant difficulties with overall executive functioning which suggests that wile his underlying executive abilities may be generally intact, his emotional symptoms seem to undermine his ability to reliably function to his potential.
    3. Student’s performance on vocabulary, semantic fluency, and phonemic fluency were very superior.
    4. Student’s overall performance on visual spatial processing was extremely high.
    5. Student’s performance on tests of learning and memory was intact with many of the results in the superior and very superior range.
    6. Student’s ASD Probability and Emotional Behavioral Disorder Probability indices were at the at-risk range. Anger Control, Developmental/Social Disorders, Negative Emotionality, and Emotional Self-Control indices were all in the clinically significant range. His ADHD Probability Index was in the normal range.
    7. Student’s Mother rated Student as having clinically significant problems with depression, somatization, atypicality, social skills, and adaptability and at-risk for anxiety and withdrawal, She also rated him as having elevated levels of inattention and hyperactivity and reported problems with oppositional behaviors, depression, and anxiety. She indicated significant concerns regarding his emotional responses, social interaction and communication, atypical cognitive style, maladaptive speech, and restricted and repetitive behaviors. (Exh. B-26)
  28. The neuropsychologist diagnosed Student with ASD, Unspecified ADHD, Unspecified Depressive Disorder, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder and made academic, emotional functioning and lifestyle recommendations for him. (Exh. B-26)
  29. During the 2024-25 school year, Student’s name was never raised at a rotating weekly meeting to indicate that were any concerns with his academic, social emotional, or behavioral functioning or that he may be struggling and need intervention. (Testimony of Director)
  30. Student’s end of year progress report indicates that he secured a broad understanding of skills/concepts in language arts, mathematics, and science and social studies and consistently demonstrated work habits, social behaviors, and efforts in specials. Teacher notes indicate that Student was consistently engaged, consistently met unit expectations with ease, was always prepared for learning, gave his best effort, was always looking for ways to challenge himself, did a great job organizing, actively participated, and showed motivation and improvement. 3rd Grade Teacher had no concerns about Student’s social emotional functioning, academic functioning, or behavior other than the silliness at the beginning of the year. (Exh. B-34; Testimony of 3rd Grade Teacher)
  31. NonResident School’s social worker met with Student for nine individual sessions during the 2024-25 school year. Student shared social anxieties and difficulties with feeling like he was not academically challenged. The social worker recommended that Student have consistent check-ins with a school counselor or school social worker to help process and develop coping skills for anxiety and frustration. (Exh. S-26; Testimony of Student’s Mother)
  32. The MTSS team talked about whether to promote Student to fourth grade for the next school year. They recognized that it was a good choice academically but questioned whether he was ready for it socially emotionally. They met with Student’s Parents who felt it was okay to move him to fourth grade. 3rd Grade Teacher was in support of Student advancing to fourth grade the following year despite concern about the future when he might be the youngest middle school student and how that might impact him socially. (Testimony of Principal, 3rd Grade Teacher)
  33. Student’s end of year attendance record indicates that he was absent on eleven Fridays in the first half of the school year while he attended the private program, absent on two other days in the school year, and tardy on three occasions during the year. (Exh. B-33, B-34; Testimony of Principal, Student’s Mother)
  34. If a student misses a lot of school because of school anxiety, BOE is required to convene a PPT meeting to look at why they are missing school and to make sure students are getting everything they need. Student did not miss a lot of school. (Testimony of Director)
  35. The MTSS team did not, at any point in the school year, see evidence of Student having distress, anxiety, or social emotional concerns. (Testimony of Principal)
  36. On July 28, 2025, Student’s Mother emailed Principal to continue discussing tuition waiver at NonResident School. She stated that NonResident School has become a place where Student feels safe and connected, he has formed meaningful friendships, speaks fondly of his teachers, and feels a sense of belonging. Principal indicated that the superintendent sent Student’s Parents a letter and she could not respond regarding tuition waiver until they responded to that letter. (Exh. B-36)
  37. Later on July 28, 2025, Student’s Parents clarified for BOE’s superintendent that their requests were for disability-related educational support under the IDEA and stated that Student is “surviving school, not thriving within.” They requested an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) which BOE denied on the basis that the initial evaluation was for eligibility as a gifted and talented student, not for eligibility as a child with a disability under the IDEA and the family is not entitled to an IEE to contest a gifted and talented evaluation. Student’s Parents responded that they were not requesting an IEE regarding identification as gifted and talented but because BOE failed to evaluate Student in all suspected areas of disability. (Exh. B-38, S-20; Testimony of Student’s Mother, Director)
  38. On July 31, 2025, Student’s Parents requested that BOE initiate a comprehensive special education evaluation of Student to determine his eligibility for an IEP under the IDEA. On August 4, 2025, BOE’s superintendent responded that BOE will schedule a PPT meeting once the school year is under way to determine the need for additional evaluations. (Exh. B-37, B-38)
  39. On August 11, 2025, Advocate reiterated Student’s Parents’ request for an IEE covering psychoeducational, occupational therapy and speech language domains including pragmatic language. (Exh. S-20; Testimony of Student’s Mother)
2025-26 School Year
  1. For the 2025-26 school year, Student was enrolled as a non-resident, out-of-district tuition student at NonResident School. He entered the year as a fourth-grade student at NonResident School. (Exh. HO-2)
  2. Social Worker became Student’s Section 504 case worker this year. (Testimony of Social Worker)
  3. Student was in 4th Grade Teacher’s class. He was in class with children one and two years older than him. (Testimony of 4th Grade Teacher)
  4. 4th Grade Teacher interacted with Student last school year while on lunch duty and in other school collaborations. 4th Grade Teacher reviewed her students’ previous grades, assessments, and Section 504 plans and/or IEPs, if any, to prepare for the new school year. Student’s Mother provided 4th Grade Teacher with information about what type of learner he is and indicated that he was anxious about new routines. (Testimony of 4th Grade Teacher)
  5. During the first month of the school year, there is a lot of review of third grade standards and learning new routines. Student was meeting and exceeding expectations in different areas. (Exh. B-58; Testimony of 4th Grade Teacher)
  6. Student was organized, using his planner, doing the tasks that needed to be done, and made a smooth transition into the fourth-grade classroom. She had no concerns about Student’s social emotional functioning. (Testimony of 4th Grade Teacher)
  7. On August 22, 2025, BOE provided Student’s Parents notice of a PPT meeting scheduled for September 2, 2025 to review their referral to special education and consider/plan an initial evaluation. A copy of the Procedural Safeguards were included with the notice. (Exh. B-39)
  8. On August 28, 2025, the neuropsychologist who conducted Student’s neuropsychological evaluation offered additional clarification and recommendations regarding Student’s academic and behavioral profile. She stated that Student is a highly gifted child with a complex clinical picture; that his family reported oppositional behaviors that are present only in the home, not in the school environment; his oppositional symptoms should be considered mild and limited to the home setting as they have not impacted his academic functioning to date; his intellectual abilities are extraordinary, he thrives when challenged appropriately, and needs access to enrichment opportunities and curriculum paced to match is abilities; such opportunities are helpful and currently insufficient to meet his needs; limited intellectual stimulation can contribute to frustration, mood difficulties, and oppositional behaviors at home; it is likely that those challenges will improve when Student has access to a challenging and engaging school environment; and Student will benefit from settings that can provide accommodations and supports outlined in the evaluation report. (Exh. B-40)
  9. On September 2, 2025, Student’s pediatrician issued a report stating that Student’s advanced skills are inseparable from his disabilities that significantly impact his ability to function in the classroom and access his education in a standard classroom setting; standard instructional methods and pacing cause him acute and ongoing stress; and that, in her opinion, Student requires a specialized school placement that can address both his unique academic needs and an individualized curriculum to meet his significant social-emotional skills deficits. She recommended that BOE pursue an IEP to provide specially designed instruction that integrates Student’s intellectual strengths with targeted supports for ASD, anxiety, ADHD, and sensory processing disorder. She indicates that Student is highly adept at masking, particularly in structured adult-led settings. She made recommendations regarding assessments and noted that, as he has already undergone two comprehensive evaluations, redundant testing will cause him unnecessary stress. (Exh. B-41)
  10. On September 2, 2025, in a letter drafted by Private Counselor in consultation with CYF medical director, CYF medical director noted that Student’s intellectual abilities, executive function skills and social abilities do not align; Student benefits from targeted, specialized support for both his intellectual and social needs; developmentally he benefits from being with children of same age and similar intellect; individualized academic challenges and active social engagement during the school day are essential supports for his mental health and ability to access his education; and Student’s disabilities substantially interfere with his ability to access the general education curriculum. (Exh. S-22; Testimony of Private Counselor)
  11. The following individuals attended the September 2, 2025 PPT meeting: Student’s Parents, Advocate, Director, Principal, 4th Grade Teacher, Social Worker, NonResident School school psychologist, special education teacher, speech and language pathologist, school counselor, and BOE’s Attorney. Student’s Parents and Advocate presented their concerns and input, including suggested accommodations. (Exh. B-42, B-45, S-24; Testimony of Advocate, Social Worker, Principal, Student’s Mother, Director)
  12. Student’s Parents requested the following supports: acceleration and enrichment in academics; staff to explain clear rationale, purpose, and real-world application of lessons and assignments; alternative demonstrations of mastery; movement during verbal expression; rigorous movement breaks; access to designated low-stimulus space within two minutes of observable distress without requiring him to verbalize the request; daily adult check-in with Student initiated by adult; advance notice of transitions; non-punitive response to dysregulation; sensory and regulation tools; and parent communication if Student requires more than three regulation interventions in a day or if patterns of distress are observed. (Exh. B-42; Testimony of Student’s Mother)
  13. The PPT considered Student’s Parents’ and Advocate’s input, Student’s school performance, recent neuropsychological evaluation, and the two recent letters from private medical providers. The school-based members of the PPT told Student’s Parents that, to be eligible for special education, a child must have an identified impairment and require special education/instruction due to an educational impact as a result of that impairment. The school-based members of the PPT decided there was no need for further evaluation because Student’s diagnosed impairments are not having an adverse impact on his educational performance and they saw no behavioral or social issues at this time. They noted that everything Student’s PCP and private evaluators are asking for can be supported through a Section 504 plan. (Exh. B-42, B-45, S-24; Testimony of Advocate, Social Worker, Principal, Student’s Mother, Director)
  14. On September 2, 2025, BOE issued two PWN. The first indicated that the PPT refused the request for evaluation on the basis that Student’s diagnosed impairments are not adversely impacting his educational performance. The PWN noted that Student’s behaviors at home are different than those in school. The second PWN indicated that the PPT refused to find Student eligible for special education at this time. (Exh. B-43, B-44)
  15. After the September 2, 2025 PPT meeting, Student’s Mother began calling special education schools and looking at other options. (Testimony of Student’s Mother)
  16. On September 3, 2025, BOE provided Student’s Parents with notice of a Section 504 meeting scheduled as an annual review for the following day. 4th Grade Teacher attended the meeting and reported that Student was only in her class for two weeks so far and was doing well academically and had good peer relations. Student’s Section 504 plan was updated to add more specific supports. NonResident School’s social worker reviewed the updated accommodations with Student’s pediatrician who was in support of the plan. Student’s Parents indicated that they were very happy with the updated Section 504 accommodations. (Exh. B-46, B-47; Testimony of 4th Grade Teacher, Student’s Mother)
  17. In addition to in-school support, BOE offered resources for Student’s Parents at home. (Testimony of Principal)
  18. Pursuant to his Section 504 plan, Student had access to fidgets and planned motor breaks to release energy. He could ask for a break at any time in the day and 4th Grade Teacher gave him a hall pass to alleviate any anxiety about being questioned in the hall. At first, Student took two to three breaks per day; the number of breaks decreased over time and were almost nonexistent by November. Student had a passion for math and hardly ever took a break during math. When he took breaks, Student usually came back in class before his five-minute break was up. He did not require adult support for his break. Sometimes he went into the hall to get a drink or go to the bathroom and then came back. (Testimony of 4th Grade Teacher)
  19. On September 4, 2025, Student’s Mother emailed Social Worker that she is very happy with the updated Section 504 accommodations and asked questions about Social Worker’s tier one services with Student and curriculum enrichment and acceleration. (Exh. B-48)
  20. 4th Grade Teacher checked in with Student informally in the morning and afternoon. She asked him to quickly rate his morning or day on a scale of one (horrible) to five (wonderful) and he often answered four or five. She always gave him a chance to talk about anything – something he did well or had problems with – and he never needed to do that. (Testimony of 4th Grade Teacher)
  21. While in 4th Grade Teacher’s class, Student met expectations, did well academically, engaged with his peers, enjoyed doing group work with a few students in math in particular. Student showed leadership in group work and was able to discuss topics and share information. When Student needed reteaching of a concept, she worked with him individually or in small group. 4th Grade Teacher did not see any anxiety from Student in class. (Testimony of 4th Grade Teacher)
  22. Student wrote lightly and sometimes took shortcuts with his handwriting. Sometimes, 4th Grade Teacher could not read his handwriting and asked him to tell her what he wrote. Student had a wrist injury and was in a wrist brace for almost a month in the fall 2025. (Exh. S-44c; Testimony of 4th Grade Teacher, Student’s Mother)
  23. On September 18, 2025, Student’s Mother asked about an occupational therapy evaluation and noted Student’s complaint that his hand hurts when he writes, he struggles with writing exercises, and his script is very small, faint, or written at an angle. (Exh. S-27, S-44, B-49; Testimony of Student’s Mother)
  24. Occupational therapy in a school setting helps students participate in academic tasks such as self-help, sensory processing, and motor development. As part of a comprehensive motor skills evaluation, Occupational Therapist would look at handwriting, muscular skeletal presentation, physical grasp, and behavior towards handwriting. She would use observation and standardized testing as part of the evaluation. An occupational therapy consult is indirect collaboration with all staff that work with the student to check for concerns and monitor current accommodations and strategies. The consult does not include direct services with a student. (Testimony of Occupational Therapist)
  25. The first step in moving toward an occupational therapy evaluation is to conduct a consult where the Occupational Therapist looks at work samples and observes in a classroom and offer the teacher some strategies. If the teacher continues to see impact, she can bring it to the team to discuss additional interventions. (Testimony of Principal)
  26. On September 18, 2025, Occupational Therapist conducted a sensory and fine motor observation of Student as part of the consult. The observation was one hour long during independent fill-in-the-blank handwriting and reading time. There was a substitute teacher in the classroom that day. Occupational Therapist observed Student display some fleeting fidgeting behavior; during the fidgeting she twice observed him sniffing his fingers, biting his nails once, and picking his nail a little bit. Overall, Student was engaged in the classroom task. She observed his handwriting during the observation and at another time the teacher allowed her to look at his reading notebook and handwriting samples. She did not observe humming or making noises in class. Student’s teacher did not indicate to Occupational Therapist that she was sometimes unable to read Student’s handwriting; she did indicate that his light penmanship was a concern. A teacher’s inability to read a student’s handwriting could impact their ability to access the classroom. Slanted handwriting can be indicative of fine motor issues. Occupational Therapist was not made aware of whether Student’s teacher needed Student to verbally dictate answers because his handwriting was hard to read. If she had known, it would warrant more observation and feedback from the team. (Exh. S-27; Testimony of Occupational Therapist)
  27. Occupational Therapist was not aware that a full fine motor evaluation was included in Student’s Section 504 plan. She saw “evaluate for fine motor as part of consult” under the plan’s recommendations. There was nothing in her observation that caused her to believe that a full fine motor evaluation was necessary. She did not receive signed consent to conduct an evaluation. She conducted the observation as part of her consult. (Testimony of Occupational Therapist)
  28. On October 8, 2025, Social Worker notified Student’s Mother that Occupational Therapist observed Student in class during a combination of independent and partner work. Social Worker stated that the specific challenges that Student’s Mother described regarding writing have not been observed in the classroom. She did not indicate that Occupational Therapist observed nail biting or picking. (Exh. S-27)
  29. 4th Grade Teacher provided Student with enrichment opportunities to work on individually or with a partner who was engaged and wanted to also do the challenges. 4th Grade Teacher observed Student working with his partner and staying on task. Although he did not complete the entire challenge packet, she did not see him struggle. (Testimony of 4th Grade Teacher)
  30. On November 6, 2025 Student’s Mother sent superintendent, Director, Principal, and Social Worker a lengthy email with legal citations, a list of Student’s immediate needs, and audio recordings of Student. The email indicates that Student’s immediate needs are differentiated, compacted, accelerated instruction across all core subjects; comprehensive fine motor, pragmatic speech, and sensory evaluations and executive function supports; regular, planned, collaborative learning with intellectual peers; individualized gifted/disability plan with ongoing review. She indicated that Student is “now missing school due to extreme distress.” (Exh. S-60)
  31. On November 10, 2025, Student’s Mother notified 4th Grade Teacher and Social Worker that Student has begun picking at and pinching himself during class when he is bored. She asked that they not confront Student directly until his therapist is able to advise how to approach it. She also asked them to keep an eye out for it and to offer him fidgets or other alternatives if he seems restless or fidgety. Social Worker responded with mental health referral resources, suggested involving Occupational Therapist to look at the behaviors from a sensory perspective, and stated that she will take Student’s Mother’s lead on when and how to address the issue with Student. (Exh. S-34, S-44, S-58; Testimony of Social Worker, Student’s Mother, Director)
  32. 4th Grade Teacher did not witness any self-injurious behavior in the classroom and was surprised to hear that report. (Testimony of 4th Grade Teacher)
  33. On November 13, 2025, Student’s Parents notified BOE that, in the near future, they will be unilaterally placing Student at Private Academy, which can implement Student’s Section 504 plan in an environment designed specifically for gifted and twice-exceptional learners. They stated that Student’s current placement at NonResident School has become emotionally and functionally harmful, Student is engaging in self-harming behaviors at school, and his anxiety, dysregulation, and school refusal have intensified. (Exh. B-52, B-53, S-35d; Testimony of Student’s Mother)
  34. Student was aware that he was going to transition to another school and was sad about leaving his friends and teachers that he adores. On November 17, 2025, Student’s Mother emailed Social Worker that she was not able to coax Student into the car that morning. (Exh. B-54, B-55)
  35. Student’s last day at NonResident School was November 25, 2025. (Exh. HO-2)
  36. Student’s attendance record indicates that he was absent once and tardy once during the 2025-26 school year prior to being unilaterally withdrawn from school. (Exh. B-57)
  37. During the 2025-26 school year while Student was at NonResident School, his name was never raised at a rotating weekly meeting to indicate that were any concerns with his academic, social emotional, or behavioral functioning or that he may be struggling and need intervention. (Testimony of Director)
  38. Student began attending Private Academy on December 1, 2025. (Exh. B-55)
  39. On January 5, 2026, in a letter drafted by Private Counselor in consultation with CYF medical director, CYF medical director wrote in support of Student’s continued placement at Private Academy and opined that it is a medically and psychologically necessary setting to ensure Student’s emotional stability and meaningful educational access. (Exh. S-35b; Testimony of Private Counselor, Student’s Mother)
  40. On January 20, 2026, Student’s pediatric nurse practitioner wrote in support of Student’s continued placement at Private Academy. She stated that Student requires both advanced academic instruction and developmentally appropriate disability-informed supports. She stated that, since enrolling at Private Academy, Student has demonstrated clear and sustained improvement and is able to attend school consistently without the level of distress previously observed. (Exh. S-35c)
  41. Private Academy is not an approved special education school. (Testimony of Director, Student’s Mother)
  42. In April 2026, Private Academy’s executive director stated that Private Academy is fully capable of implementing the accommodations in Student’s Section 504 plan and opined that Private Academy is an appropriate placement for Student because it meets his advanced academic needs and disability-related needs together, not separately. (Exh. S-35d)

Conclusions Of Law

  1. A school district must ensure that all children suspected of being a child with a disability in need of special education and related services are identified, located, and evaluated.
  2. A school district’s Child Find duty is triggered when it has reason to suspect the child has a disability and may need special education services to address the disability, even if the child is advancing from grade to grade. A violation of the Child Find obligation is a procedural violation of the IDEA.
  3. A school district may be liable for failing to identify a child who should be evaluated for special education if they overlooked clear signs of disability and negligent in failing to order testing or if there was no rational justification for deciding not to evaluate.
  4. Each school district must provide FAPE for each child with a disability.
  5. Child with a disability means a child with an intellectual disability, a hearing impairment (including deafness), a speech or language impairment, a visual impairment (including blindness), a serious emotional disturbance, an orthopedic impairment, autism, traumatic brain injury, an other health impairment, a specific learning disability, deaf-blindness, or multiple disabilities, and who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services. If a child has one of the disabilities identified above but only needs a related service and not special education, the child is not a child with a disability.
  6. Diagnosis of one of the specified disabilities alone does not establish IDEA eligibility. A child with such diagnosis must also need special services.
  7. Special education means specially designed instruction, at no cost to the parents, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability.
  8. Specially designed instruction means adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible child under the IDEA, the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction to address the unique needs of the child that result from the child's disability; and to ensure access of the child to the general curriculum, so that the child can meet the educational standards within the jurisdiction of the public agency that apply to all children.
  9. Either a parent of a child or a school district may initiate a request for an initial evaluation to determine if the child is a child with a disability.
  10. In determining if a student is a child with a disability, the school district must gather and consider relevant functional, developmental, and academic information, including that provided by parents, and assess the child 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.
  11. The IDEA does not include provisions for gifted and talented education. State laws and regulations, not the IDEA, apply to gifted and talented education.
  12. Under Connecticut law, gifted and talented means a child identified by the PPT possessing demonstrated or potential abilities that give evidence of very superior intellectual, creative or specific academic capability and needing differentiated instruction or services beyond those being provided in the general education program in order to realize the child’s intellectual, creative or specific academic potential.
  13. A school district is required to provide referral, identification and evaluation services only for gifted and talented children enrolled in grades kindergarten to twelve in a public school under the jurisdiction of such district. The provision of all other special education and related services to gifted and talented children shall be at the discretion of each school district, except if a child identified as gifted or talented is also identified as a child with a disability, then the child shall receive special education and related services.
  14. A PPT is the IEP team as defined in the IDEA who participate equally in the decision-making process to determine the specific educational needs of a child with a disability and develop an IEP for the child. For purposes of evaluation, identification or determination of the specific educational needs of a child who may be gifted or talented, the PPT means a group of certified or licensed professionals who represent each of the teaching, administrative and pupil personnel staffs, and who participate equally in the decision-making process. Parents are not included in the list of required PPT members for purposes of evaluation, identification, or determination of a gifted or talented child.
  15. Written notice (PWN) must be given to the parents of a child with a disability a reasonable time before the public agency proposes to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child or the provision of FAPE to the child; or refuses to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child or the provision of FAPE to the child.
  16. PWN must include a description of the action proposed or refused by the agency; an explanation of why the agency proposes or refuses to take the action; a description of each evaluation procedure, assessment, record, or report the agency used as a basis for the proposed or refused action; a statement that the parents of a child with a disability have protection under the procedural safeguards of this part and, if this notice is not an initial referral for evaluation, the means by which a copy of a description of the procedural safeguards can be obtained; sources for parents to contact to obtain assistance in understanding the provisions of this part; a description of other options that the IEP Team considered and the reasons why those options were rejected; and a description of other factors that are relevant to the agency’s proposal or refusal.
  17. The standard for determining whether FAPE has been provided is a two-pronged inquiry: first, whether the procedural requirements of the IDEA have been met, and second, whether the IEP is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.
  18. Where parents allege a procedural violation under the IDEA, a Hearing Officer may find a denial of FAPE only if the violation impeded the child's right to FAPE; significantly impeded the parents' opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of FAPE; or caused a deprivation of educational benefits. That shall not be construed to preclude a hearing officer from ordering a district to comply with the procedural requirements.
  19. The PPT’s actions or refusals must be reviewed in light of the information available to the PPT at the time of that action or refusal.
  20. A Hearing Officer appointed under 34 C.F.R. § 300.500 et seq. and Conn. Agencies Regs. § 10-76h-1 et seq. has the authority (A) to confirm, modify, or reject the identification, evaluation or educational placement of or the provision of FAPE to the child or pupil, (B) to determine the appropriateness of an educational placement where the parent or guardian of a child requiring special education has placed the child or pupil in a program other than that prescribed by the PPT, or (C) to prescribe alternate special educational programs for the child.
  21. BOE has the burden of proving the appropriateness of a student’s program or placement or of the proposed program or placement by a preponderance of the evidence.

Parties’ Positions

BOE argues that the dispute in this matter is narrow; it is primarily a Child Find case; specifically whether BOE violated its Child Find obligation to Student by failing to evaluate Student in all suspected areas of disability and failed to find Student eligible for special education thereby depriving him of FAPE; BOE provided Student with FAPE during the 2023-24, 2024-25, and 2025-26 school years; BOE acted reasonably based on the information available at the time; the PPT appropriately determined that further evaluation was not necessary in determining that Student was not eligible for special education; BOE did not commit procedural violations that impeded Student’s access to FAPE or Student’s Parents’ right to participate in the decision-making process or cause deprivation of educational benefits; BOE consistently sought to work cooperatively with Student’s Parents whose decision to seek education outside the district was their choice and not compelled by any failure of BOE; Student attended Neighborhood School during the 2023-24 school year and NonResident School as a non-resident tuition Student for the 2024-25 and 2025-26 school years until his parents withdrew him in November 2025; during the 2024-25 school year, Neighborhood School convened a PPT meeting to review Student’s Parent’s request to have Student tested as gifted; the PPT recommended and Student’s Parents consented to assessment of Student’s cognitive ability and academic achievement; at that time there was no reasonable suspicion that Student was a child with a disability in need of special education and related services; during the 2025-26 school year the NonResident School team convened a Section 504 meeting as recommended by Student’s pediatrician who diagnosed Student with ASD; the NonResident School team also convened a PPT meeting to review the results of an outside neuropsychological evaluation provided by Student’s Parents; the PPT again determined that Student was not a child with a disability in need of special education and related services; at all relevant times, Student has been successful in the classroom socially, emotionally, and academically; Student has shown no indication that he required special education to make educational progress; at the end of the 2024-25 school year Student was determined eligible for accommodations under Section 504 based on his ASD diagnosis; under the IDEA, diagnosis does not equate to special education eligibility; Student was not struggling in school and does not need special education to make progress; Child Find is a procedural requirement; even if there was a Child Find violation, no remedy is required because it did not impede Student’s right to FAPE or Student’s Parents opportunity to participate; BOE does not dispute that Student is twice-exceptional; Student’s disability does not have an adverse impact on his education; he is able to successfully access his education with accommodations; the IDEA does not require an ideal learning environment; Student’s Parents frequently expressed their desire for Student to have an accelerated curriculum; BOE is required to provide an appropriate, not optimal, education.

They further argue that BOE met its obligations under the IDEA during each school year at issue; complied with its Child Find obligations; appropriately determined Student was not eligible for special education and related services under the IDEA; followed the procedural requirements of the IDEA; made reasonable decisions based on the information available to it at the time; Student’s Parents’ claims fundamentally conflate a desire for academic acceleration and access to intellectual peers with a need for special education; the IDEA does not require a school district to maximize a gifted student’s potential; it requires that children with disabilities requiring specially designed instruction to meet state educational standards receive FAPE.

In their Request for Hearing, Student’s Parents state: This complaint is not based on a request for gifted education services. Rather, it is based on BOE’s failure to recognize and address disability-related barriers to meaningful access and progress for a student with autism, anxiety, and ADHD whose high academic performance did not accurately reflect the impact of his disabilities on his ability to access and benefit from instruction, as demonstrated by escalating anxiety, school refusal, and self-injurious behavior in the school setting.

Student’s Parents argue that Student began kindergarten excited to make new friends and eager to learn; it very quickly became apparent that he was different from other children in the class; he had unusually strong math and reading skills and was accelerated into the first grade math cohort; teachers also noted handwriting difficulties, continual humming that disturbed his peers, difficulty with social reciprocity, and significant difficulty with transition and unexpected changes in routine; Student began telling his parents that school was boring and he already knew the material; he developed distress centered around repetition of work; by the winter break, Student hated school; in first grade, Student’s complaints about the pace of curriculum continued and his distress escalated; in kindergarten and first grade there were days that Student’s Parents could not compel him to attend school; Student is a rule-follower, deeply wants praise from adults, and held it together during the school day; almost daily he would have emotional breakdowns in frustration; Student became increasingly dysregulated at home before and after school due to a clear and escalating pattern of academic mismatch, social difficulty, anxiety, masking, school refusal, and functional distress tied to school; Student’s Parents requested that he be tested to get a baseline understanding of his knowledge and instructional needs; this case is not about gifted services; Student’s Parents are fully aware that Connecticut does not require schools to provide gifted services; Student’s intellect is inseparable from his disability profile; his strengths mask his needs and his needs distort how his strengths appear in school; the IDEA does not exclude a child because he is academically advanced; high cognition does not place a child outside the IDEA’s protection; schools cannot lawfully tell a disabled child who learns quickly to slow down their learning and endure curriculum mismatch any more than they can tell a learning delayed child to speed up their learning; under the IDEA, the questions are whether Student has a disability and whether by reason of that disability his educational performance was adversely affected and he therefore needs special education and related services; educational performance is not limited to grades, it includes academic, social-emotional, behavioral, and functional performance; Student’s success in academic areas did not negate the areas where he was plainly crumbling; Child Find requires BOE to act when there is reason to suspect Student has a disability and might need special education and related services because of that disability; the Child Find duty does not disappear because Student was advancing from grade to grade or earning strong grades; once those concerns were present, the IDEA required BOE to evaluate Student in all suspected areas of disability including social-emotional, communication, and motor abilities; Child Find is an affirmative duty; BOE was not permitted to wait until Student was failing academically, in full behavioral collapse, or removed from school but this is effectively what happened here; BOE was not proactive with Student; BOE responded narrowly and too late even when the warning signs and harm became more serious; special education under the IDEA is specially designed instruction which means adapting content, methodology, instruction delivery to address a child's unique disability-related needs and ensure access to education; Student needed academic instruction that did not trap him in already mastered material and intensify his distress through repetition and mismatch; functionally, he needed disability-responsive instruction and services addressing executive functioning, self-regulation, pragmatic language, fine motor and writing difficulties, and dysgraphia-related output burdens; the February and March 2024 PPT meetings began as special education referrals and were narrowed to gifted and talented by BOE; PWN was not provided to Student’s Parents for those meetings as required by the IDEA; disability ratings and screening data were not fully entered into the evaluation report and were disposed of by BOE; Student’s disability-related needs were confined to a Section 504 plan that did not address his broader distress; a requested IEE was denied on the basis that the referral was for gifted and talented eligibility only; at the September 2025 PPT meeting BOE declined to evaluate Student despite updated diagnosis and renewed requests for IDEA consideration; BOE did not provide timely, reliable or usable production of records which impaired Student’s Parents’ participation; Student’s Parents are not seeking adjudication of standalone FERPA or Section 504 claims; the IDEA gives parents the right to inspect and review education records prior to a due process hearing; the Section 504 history shows that BOE recognized Student’s disability-related needs but chose to address them through accommodations not specially designed instruction; Student never received an IEP because BOE refused to fulfill it’s duties to identify, evaluate and determine eligibility; BOE focused too narrowly on grades and surface presentation while overlooking the broader picture; Student’s strong cognition did not cancel his disabilities but helped camouflage them; Student held it together at school and fell apart at home; that does not mean that school was working; it means that he was paying too high a price for attendance and was not accessing education in any meaningful sense; Student’s Parents ask the Hearing Officer to find that BOE failed its Child Find obligation, failed to evaluate Student in all suspected areas of disability, failed to properly find him eligible for special education; and denied him FAPE; and they also ask that the procedural violations be found to not be technical or harmless but to find that they caused substantive harm by impeding their right to parental participation.

Discussion

Each of the issues identified in this case is addressed in this Discussion section. All evidence and arguments have been thoroughly reviewed and considered by the Hearing Officer even if not specifically cited below.

The Request for Hearing alleges that, by February 2024, BOE had actual notice that Student was experiencing significant anxiety and school-related distress that was interfering with his ability to access education and failed to evaluate in all areas of suspected disability, thereby violating their Child Find obligation.

Beginning January 11, 2024, when Student was in the combined first/second grade class, Student’s Parents raised concerns about Student’s frustration with the pace of school and feeling that his teachers don’t think he is smart, Student’s worry that the older children he has been learning with will advance to third grade without him the following year, and Student’s Parents’ difficulty getting him out the door each morning. Those concerns prompted Student’s Parents to request to have Student tested to get “a real baseline sense of where he is intellectually and academically.”

Student’s Parents additionally expressed concern about Student’s stress and anxiety and morning battles about going to school. They indicated that Student’s healthcare provider encouraged having Student tested to see if he qualifies as gifted, noted that he needs a PPT test, and indicated that she is assessing him for social anxiety and learning needs/enrichment.

BOE staff did not see signs of school refusal, stress, or anxiety or any behaviors that interfered with his ability to access his education. BOE did see evidence of Student being academically advanced, motivated, social, and enjoying friendships in school. Based on his presentation at school, BOE did not have reason to suspect that Student had a disability.

Based on Student’s Parents’ information and request, BOE scheduled a PPT meeting for February 14, 2024 at which Student’s Parents shared concerns about Student’s increasing distress and possible ASD, ADHD, and fine motor concerns. Just as diagnosis of a disability alone does not establish IDEA eligibility, the possibility of such a diagnosis without any evidence of impact on Student’s education does not give rise to reason to suspect that Student had a disability and may need special education services to address the disability in the school environment. The PPT proposed and Student’s Parents consented to an initial evaluation.

The credible evidence in the record supports a finding that Student’s Parents raised concerns about the impact of Student’s academic prowess on his behavior and emotional state at home and that BOE responded immediately by scheduling a PPT meeting wherein Student’s Parents’ input and Student’s school performance (including academic, social emotional and behavioral) was considered and an initial evaluation proposed, thereby complying with their Child Find obligation at that time.

The Request for Hearing alleges that BOE failed to issue legally sufficient PWN following its refusals to evaluate Student for IDEA eligibility. Both the February 14, 2024 PPT meeting notice and evaluation consent form indicated that they were related to a referral to special education and made no mention of gifted and talented. Student’s Parents received the Procedural Safeguards with the meeting notice. School Psychologist testified that the PPT meeting was a referral to special education to determine what would happen next, the PPT discussed a number of concerns, issues raised by Student’s Parents weren’t interfering with Student’s academic performance, and it was decided that evaluations beyond gifted and talented were unnecessary. Refusal to evaluate for other issues raised by Student’s Parents should be documented in PWN.

No PWN for this meeting was introduced into evidence. Student’s Parents credibly testified that they did not receive PWN after this PPT meeting. Director also testified that there is no PWN for that meeting in CT-SEDS and she doesn’t know why there wasn’t one unless it was because the school-based members of the PPT thought the meeting was only for identification as gifted and talented.

BOE did not meet its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it provided Student’s Parents with legally sufficient PWN or that they were not legally required to provide PWN for the February 14, 2024 PPT meeting actions.

Student’s Parents testified about their active participation in the February 14, 2024 PPT meeting and consent for the evaluations proposed by the PPT. The procedural error did not cause educational loss to Student and did not significantly deny Student’s Parents a meaningful voice in the decision-making process and was therefore not a substantive harm under the IDEA.

The Request for Hearing alleges that BOE failed to evaluate Student in all areas of suspected disability when it limited the initial evaluation to cognitive and academic assessments and did not evaluate for ASD, ADHD, anxiety and/or fine motor issues. There is no dispute that the PPT proposed only psychoeducational and academic evaluations at the February 14, 2024 PPT meeting. At that time, BOE was on notice of Student’s advanced academic capabilities and reports of emotional and behavioral concerns at home related to his school experience.

BOE staff did not dispute or question the veracity of Student’s Parents’ testimony that Student experienced stress and anxiety at home. School-based staff consistently and credibly testified that they saw no evidence of stress, anxiety or school refusal in Student or any behaviors that interfered with his ability to access his education. Student’s 2023-24 progress reports indicate that he was motivated, always tries his best, performs above grade level academically, is a great contributor in the classroom, made great progress in writing, is friendly to all students, and expresses his silly personality in school. In early 2024, Student demonstrated no behaviors at school that gave BOE reason to suspect that he was a child with a disability and may need special education services to address the disability.

In their post-hearing brief, Student’s Parents cite an as-yet unpublished OSEP guidance letter based on a request from Student’s Mother in May 2026. The letter states that if BOE “does not think an evaluation is warranted, they must provide [PWN] of the refusal to evaluate, including an explanation of why they are not evaluating.” BOE is not required to conduct an evaluation based solely on a request. BOE is required to gather and consider relevant functional, developmental, and academic information to determine what, if any, evaluation is appropriate. The PPT considered input from Student’s Parents and teachers about Student’s academic, functional, and developmental performance. The credible evidence in the record supports a finding that Student was not only successfully accessing academic instruction but was actively engaging and participating in class, maintaining peer relationships, and managing emotions at school. BOE offered a rational justification for deciding not to evaluate Student further.

BOE conducted psychoeducational and academic evaluations as proposed by the PPT and consented to by Student’s Parents. The psychoeducational evaluation report indicates its purpose is to determine if Student should be classified as gifted and talented. The academic evaluation indicates it is for determining present levels of academic achievement. School Psychologist and Special Education Teacher reviewed the evaluation results with Student’s Parents, putting them on notice that the evaluations were limited to intellectual and academic achievement.

There are two notices for the March 20, 2024 PPT meeting in the record: one indicating that the purpose of the meeting was to review evaluation and determine eligibility and another stating the purpose as gifted and talented. Student’s Parents received the Procedural Safeguards with the meeting notice. The evaluations and teacher reports were reviewed at the March 20, 2024 PPT meeting at which the PPT identified Student as gifted and talented.

BOE did not meet its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it provided Student’s Parents with legally sufficient PWN or that they were not legally required to provide PWN for the March 20, 2024 PPT meeting actions. The procedural error did not cause educational loss to Student or significantly deny Student’s Parents a meaningful voice in the decision-making process and was therefore not a substantive harm under the IDEA.

Student’s Parents continued to express concern about sustained academic rigor for Student and BOE’s ability to challenge Student with higher level work among peers of similar intellect. In April 2024, Student’s Parents noted that Student was finally being given more appropriate work, seems happy and content and is okay other than his anxiety about being separated from his peers the following school year.

Student’s Parents transferred Student to NonResident School for the 2024-25 school year where he would have more flexibility to receive advanced academic instruction while engaging with similar aged peers in non-academic settings. At NonResident School, staff continued to see evidence of Student being academically advanced, motivated, social, and enjoying friendships in school. They did not see signs of school refusal, stress, or anxiety in Student. In December 2024, Student’s Parents indicated that they were happy with the experience at NonResident School and that Student’s healthcare provider wants to look into possible ADHD, ASD, and sensory processing issues.

In January 2025, Student was diagnosed with anxiety disorder of childhood and referred for a private ASD evaluation. In March 2025, Student was diagnosed with ASD, sensory processing delays, and possible fine motor disorder. In April 2025, Student’s Parents requested certain accommodations for Student. BOE scheduled a Section 504 meeting to review referral, consider evaluation, determine eligibility, and develop a Section 504 plan. BOE found Student eligible under Section 504 and developed and implemented a Section 504 plan with accommodations.

BOE still did not see evidence of Student having distress, anxiety, or social emotional concerns at school. He continued to perform far above average in academics, was consistently engaged and prepared for learning, actively participated, was organized and motivated and demonstrated no concerns with academic, social emotional, or behavioral functioning at school that gave BOE reason to suspect that he was a child with a disability that required intervention in the form of specialized instruction. Evaluators and educators alike credibly testified that children can present differently in home, school, and clinical settings.

Student’s Mother testified that the proper question was not whether Student’s lower scores were average compared to typical children his age but whether those scores were significantly weaker compared to his own exceptional profile and whether that was causing frustration or interfering with access. That Student has relative weaknesses in some areas (which are average compared to his peers) as compared to his cognitive ability does not mean that he needs special education to access the general education curriculum. Student’s Parents suggested that, for purposes of determining his need for specialized instruction, Student’s skills should be evaluated based on intrapersonal analysis instead of comparing him to same-age peers.

Student’s Parents argue that staff notes indicating that Student can improve his handwriting and that his teacher sometimes has difficulty reading his handwriting is evidence of motor difficulties that should have triggered an evaluation. There was credible testimony that being advanced intellectually while still developing fine motor and other classroom skills is not a discrepancy that immediately causes concern in a young child. That there is opportunity for improvement in a young child’s handwriting does not, in and of itself, equate to suspected disability or need for specialized instruction.

In June 2025, Student was diagnosed with ASD, Unspecified ADHD, Unspecified Depressive Disorder, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder. In July 2025, Student’s Parents requested a comprehensive special education evaluation of Student to determine his eligibility for an IEP under the IDEA.

BOE convened a PPT meeting on September 2, 2025 for the purpose of reviewing a referral to special education and considering/planning an initial evaluation. Again, BOE is not required to conduct an evaluation based solely on a request. BOE is required to gather and consider relevant functional, developmental, and academic information.

The PPT considered input from Student’s Parents, Advocate, private evaluators, and healthcare providers and school staff. The input included academic, functional, and developmental information and performance. BOE continued to not see any behavioral or social issues with Student at school and saw no adverse impact on his educational performance. The credible evidence in the record supports a finding that Student was not only successfully accessing academic instruction but was actively engaging and participating in class, maintaining peer relationships, and managing emotions at school. Based on a review of all available information, the school-based members of the PPT did not believe that further evaluation was necessary or that Student required special education absent an educational impact. BOE again offered a rational justification for deciding not to evaluate Student further.

BOE issued PWNs indicating that, at this time, further evaluation is not necessary and Student is not eligible for special education. The PWNs state the reasons for refusal, the evaluations and reports used as a basis for the decision, other options considered and rejected, reasons for rejecting other options, and other factors relevant to the action. BOE met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it provided Student’s Parents with legally sufficient PWN for the September 2, 2025 PPT meeting actions.

Student’s Parents argue that BOE did not evaluate Student and so cannot make an eligibility determination without a comprehensive evaluation. As stated above, BOE is not required to conduct an evaluation based solely on a request. They are required to gather and consider relevant functional, developmental, and academic information, which the PPT did in determining that further evaluation was not necessary to ascertain if Student is a child with a disability that may require special education.

The Request for Hearing alleges that BOE continued to rely on grades, attendance, and behavioral compliance to conclude that Student was accessing the general education curriculum and making progress without assessing whether he was meaningfully benefiting from instruction or making progress appropriate to his circumstances. Student’s Parents argue that he was not making progress appropriate to his circumstances, meaning that he required specialized instruction in the form of advanced academics to meet his high cognitive abilities and to reduce stress and anxiety that manifested at home and not at school. They argue that advanced curriculum was not being requested as a gifted benefit but as a disability benefit to reduce his anxiety and stress that manifests at home.

Director credibly testified that BOE did not see any type of distress that they could intervene in at school or recommend any type of specialized instruction to mitigate. Student’s Mother testified that the neuropsychologist explained to her that Student uses his intellect and learned social knowledge to mask his difficulties at school. The undisputed credible evidence indicates that Student managed emotions and behavior at school through the coping mechanism of masking.

Student’s Father testified that Student reported that his distress at home is directly caused by the lack of any challenge at school and by repetitive curriculum. Student’s Mother testified that curriculum mismatch was causing acute stress rather than meaningful access. To demonstrate that Student’s anxiety and distress were directly connected to the educational environment, Student’s Mother testified that when BOE adjusted the educational mismatch, Student’s presentation improved and his anxiety temporarily resolved. Similarly, Student’s Parents testified that when Private Academy adjusted the educational mismatch, Student’s anxiety resolved.

The specially designed instruction that Student’s Parents desire is accelerated curriculum and enrichment to reduce Student’s emotional dysregulation that manifests at home, not instruction to allow Student to access the general education curriculum consistent with State standards. In a November 6, 2025 email to Principal, Student’s Mother indicated that Student is “denied the opportunity to progress commensurate with his potential.” (Exh S-60) They argue that adapted pace and content are not academic enrichment but disability-related support to reduce dysregulation that manifests at home, not school.

Specially designed instruction is intended to ensure access to the general curriculum so that a child can meet the district’s educational standards that apply to all children. That a child may be eligible for special education even when advancing from grade to grade or not failing a course does not mean that advanced instruction is required as specialized instruction to match or challenge strong cognitive abilities. Gifted and talented instruction is not required in Connecticut. Whether offering advanced academic programming is a best practice, being successfully implemented elsewhere, or desired by Student’s Parents is not the standard for evaluating whether a student requires special education.

Student’s Parents argue that Student’s strong cognitive scores do not cancel out his ASD, ADHD, anxiety or emotional distress. BOE has not argued that his high intellect cancels out those conditions; they identified what Student needs to be successful in the general education classroom given his circumstances. BOE provided accommodations through Section 504 to support his disabilities at school. There is no evidence that Student lacked meaningful access to education. To the contrary, there was consistent credible evidence in the record that Student successfully accessed his education academically, socially and behaviorally.

Final Decision And Order

The Board of Education did not fail to provide Student with a free appropriate public education from February 13, 2024 to the end of the 2023-24 school year or during the 2024-25 or 2025-26 school years.

Pursuant to the authority vested in the Hearing Officer by 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(iii) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.513(a)(3), the Board of Education is ordered to provide training for special education administrators and case managers on the requirements, procedures, and best practices for issuing Prior Written Notice. The training shall be conducted by an external, independent individual well-versed in the requirements of 34 C.F.R. § 300.503(b) and Conn. Agencies Regs. § 10-76d-8 and shall be a minimum of two hours in duration. The training shall be completed within 20 school days of the date of this order.

Comments On The Conduct Of The Proceedings

Student’s Parents indicated that this is the first time they have been involved in a legal matter. Student’s Parents, and Student’s Mother in particular, were very thorough in their research and presentation of their case, asked appropriate questions about hearing procedure, made good efforts to comply with evidentiary orders, prepared with typed out questions for each witness covering each issue in the case, made efforts to be efficient and focused, and served as passionate and engaged advocates for their son. They prepared a very extensive, well-written post-hearing brief that clearly articulated their positions.

BOE’s Attorney was very thorough and concise in presentation of witnesses. The parties cooperated in coordinating and scheduling witnesses to ensure an efficient and organized hearing.