Connecticut State Department of Education

Final Decision and Order Case #26-0454

September 17, 2026

Student v. Hartford Board of Education

Appearing on behalf of the Student:
Parent, Pro Se

Appearing on behalf of the Board:
Michelle Laubin, Esq.
Alessandra Pulit, Esq.

Appearing before:
Michael S. Lazan
Hearing Officer

Final Decision And Order

I. Introduction

This case concerns an eight-year-old student (the “Student”) who is eligible for special education and related services under the disability classification of autism, and who attends a public charter school located in Hartford, Connecticut, that the Student’s parent (the “Parent”) selected. A due process complaint (the “Complaint”) was filed on February 20, 2026 by the Parent, on behalf of the Student, pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and applicable Connecticut law and regulation, against the Hartford Board of Education (the “Board”). The Complaint was amended on May 6, 2026. The Parent contends that the Board failed to offer the Student an appropriate individualized education program (“IEP”) at planning and placement team (“PPT”) meetings held on September 12, 2025 and January 14, 2026, and that those meetings lacked required participants and did not afford her meaningful participation. As relief the Parent seeks placement in a therapeutic special education program outside the district, compensatory education and related services.

II. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

This due process hearing was held, and a decision in this matter is being rendered, pursuant to the IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., its implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. Part 300, Connecticut General Statutes § 10-76a et seq., and the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies §§ 10-76h-1 et seq. To the extent the Complaint asserts claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, this Hearing Officer does not have jurisdiction over such claims and they are not addressed in this decision.

III. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed on February 20, 2026. This Hearing Officer was appointed to preside over this matter on February 23, 2026.

A prehearing conference was held by telephone on March 18, 2026. Michael Gilberg, Esq., appeared on behalf of the Student. Michelle Laubin, Esq., appeared on behalf of the Board. A Prehearing Conference Summary and Order was issued on March 26, 2026.

On April 30, 2026, Petitioner’s counsel advised this Hearing Officer that he was withdrawing his representation of the Parent. A further prehearing conference was held on May 5, 2026, at which the Parent indicated that she might wish to amend the Complaint. A timelines extension order was issued on May 5, 2026, extending the timelines to June 5, 2026. The Parent filed an amended complaint on May 6, 2026. A Revised Prehearing Conference Summary and Order was issued on June 17, 2026, and was revised on June 22, 2026 and again on June 24, 2026.

The hearing was held over four days, on July 10, 2026, August 18, 2026, August 27, 2026 and September 2, 2026. The hearing days of July 10, August 27 and September 2, 2026 were conducted remotely by videoconference. The hearing day of August 18, 2026 was conducted at the Connecticut State Department of Education, 450 Columbus Boulevard, Hartford, Connecticut. This was a closed proceeding. The Parent appeared pro se. The Board was represented by Michelle Laubin, Esq., and Alessandra Pulit, Esq.

The Board’s exhibits B-1 through B-81 were admitted into evidence on the first day of hearing. The Board’s supplemental exhibits B-82 through B-84 were marked for identification. The Parent’s exhibits P-3, P-12, P-14, P-15, P-16, P-17, P-18, P-19, P-23 and P-24 were admitted into evidence. Hearing Officer exhibits HO-1 and HO-2 were marked for identification and Hearing Officer exhibit HO-3 was admitted into evidence.

The Board presented as witnesses, in the following order: [REDACTED], MOT, OTR/L, occupational therapist; [REDACTED], MS, Ed, CCC-SLP, speech and language pathologist and the Student’s case manager for part of the period at issue; [REDACTED], out of district placement specialist for the Hartford Public Schools; [REDACTED], board certified behavior analyst; [REDACTED], special education teacher; [REDACTED], general education teacher; and [REDACTED], Psy.D., the independent evaluator selected by the Parent. The Parent presented as witnesses, in the following order: [REDACTED], special education advocate; the Parent; and [REDACTED], board certified behavior analyst.

The parties presented oral closing statements on September 2, 2026. At the conclusion of the hearing, on the Board’s suggestion and without objection from the Parent, the mailing date of this decision was extended to September 17, 2026 to permit receipt of the hearing transcripts.

IV. Issues

As identified in the Revised Prehearing Conference Summary and Order, the issues to be determined in this case are as follows:

  1. Did the BOE fail to provide the Student with appropriate IEPs on September 12, 2025 and January 14, 2026? If so, did the BOE deny the Student a Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”)?

    Petitioner contended that the IEPs: 1) failed to provide appropriate specialized instruction and sufficient special education services; 2) failed to provide appropriate communication supports; 3) failed to provide appropriate behavioral supports including a behavior intervention plan; 4) failed to provide measurable and appropriate IEP goals; 5) failed to provide appropriate services to address the Student’s unique needs as a nonverbal student with autism and intellectual disability; 6) provided the Student with a school setting without sufficient staffing, supports, and related services; 7) failed to address the Student’s adaptive needs.

  2. Did the BOE fail to arrange for the September 12, 2025 and January 14, 2026 IEP meetings to have all the required participants, and fail to allow the parent to meaningfully participate in the meetings?

As relief, Petitioner seeks placement in an appropriate therapeutic special education program, compensatory education and related services, and any additional related relief.

V. Findings Of Fact

Based on the testimony presented on July 10, August 18, August 27 and September 2, 2026, the exhibits admitted into evidence, and the pleadings, I make the following findings of fact. The Board's exhibits are designated B-, the Parent's exhibits are designated P-, and the hearing transcript is designated Tr.

  1. The Student was born on February 22, 2018 and is eligible for special education and related services under the disability classification of autism. The Student uses verbal language, requests preferred items in single words, answers simple yes and no questions with prompting, and does not sustain reciprocal conversation. Tr. 154-157, 409. The Student engages in vocal scripting of numbers, road signs and navigation phrases throughout the school day. Tr. 311, 339, 396. The Student demonstrates more active engagement in mathematics activities than in reading activities and enjoys mathematics activities that incorporate movement, songs, shapes and counting. B-75.
  2. The Student has a speech generating device provided by the parent which he brings with him. Tr. 128-129. The Student usually communicates verbally in his speech sessions and has not been observed engaging another adult or student using the device. Tr. 128-129, 168. The Student has some language with the use of the device, including the words bathroom, drink and fruit. B-75. The Student does not demonstrate reciprocal conversation, his communication is heavily scripted and prompted, and his responses to questions beginning with a question word are generally learned or scripted. Tr. 707, 709-710.
  3. The Student did not attend kindergarten and instead attended an insurance based applied behavior analysis program full time in place of kindergarten. Tr. 183, 626; B-9. On moving to Hartford the parent contacted the Hartford Public Schools to register the Student and was advised that other programs were available through charter and magnet schools. Tr. 626. The parent completed an online application, the Student was offered a seat at Achievement First, and the parent accepted it. Tr. 627. Attendance at a charter or magnet school is a parent choice made when registering with the Hartford Public Schools. Tr. 178-180. The Student attended Achievement First Hartford Academy Elementary School, a public charter school, as a first grader for the 2024-2025 school year. B-12; Tr. 178. Achievement First is responsible for implementing the IEP, for writing the goals and objectives and for conducting the evaluations, and the Hartford Public Schools has no input into staffing at Achievement First. Tr. 181, 260.
  4. A PPT meeting was held for the Student on September 3, 2024. B-12. The purpose of the meeting was an annual review and a student transfer, and to bring into compliance an IEP that had expired. Tr. 182; B-12. The team continued the Student’s eligibility under speech and language impairment pending evaluation and obtained parental consent for a reevaluation. Tr. 186-189; B-19. The September 3, 2024 IEP provided language and communication services once daily for twenty minutes individually, pre-academic skills four times weekly for twenty minutes in the general education setting and twice weekly for thirty minutes in a resource setting, together with fine motor services and indirect occupational therapy and behavior analyst consultation. B-12. At the meeting the parent inquired about the process to receive an out of district placement. Tr. 188; B-12.
  5. The reevaluation consisted of a developmental history, autism rating scales, a communication and academic assessment, an occupational therapy and sensory assessment, and a functional behavioral assessment. Tr. 187; B-19. An occupational therapy summary dated October 15, 2024 identified limited motor control, motor accuracy and motor planning, among other needs. Tr. 59; B-20. A psychological evaluation dated November 5, 2024 consisted of the Autism Spectrum Rating Scales completed by the parent and by the Student’s teacher. The Total Score fell in the Very Elevated range at home and at school, and both raters reported Very Elevated concerns on the Social Communication and Peer Socialization scales, among others. B-22. A functional behavioral assessment completed November 14, 2024 identified physical aggression, property destruction, verbal outbursts, out of seat behavior and grounding as target behaviors, and identified escape from non-preferred or novel demands as the function of the physical aggression and property destruction. Tr. 307-308; B-23.
  6. A program review and communication assessment dated November 19, 2024 used the Verbal Behavior Milestones Assessment and Placement Program (VB-MAPP), which has three levels corresponding to the ranges from birth to eighteen months, eighteen to thirty months, and thirty to forty-eight months. The Student demonstrated the most mastered skills at Level 1, with splinter skills throughout Levels 2 and 3, and obtained a barriers assessment score of forty-nine. Tr. 144; B-25. Over a three minute interval the Student required twenty-two redirections to maintain focus on a story being read aloud. Within a five minute testing interval the Student required an average of twenty prompts to redirect his attention to the task. B-25.
  7. A PPT meeting was held for the Student on November 19, 2024. The team changed the Student’s eligibility classification to autism. Tr. 193; B-27. Pre-academic skills instruction with the special education teacher in a resource setting was increased from twice weekly for thirty minutes to four times weekly for thirty minutes effective December 13, 2024. One to one adult support of 1,980 minutes per week, which is thirty-three hours, was added effective December 13, 2024 and is delivered by a paraeducator. B-27; Tr. 194. Board certified behavior analyst consultation of sixty minutes was increased from three times per month to four times per month effective December 13, 2024, and indirect speech and language consultation of thirty minutes once per month was added effective the same date. B-27.
  8. A behavior intervention plan dated November 26, 2024 addressed physical aggression and property destruction, and identified replacement behaviors of communicating a need for help or a break, cooperating with directed activities to earn breaks, and maintaining a safe body. Tr. 315-317; B-32. The parent agreed to the recommendations and asked that an out of district placement continue to be kept in mind. Tr. 195; B-27.
  9. An annual review was held for the Student on March 17, 2025. B-41. The March 17, 2025 IEP provided academic skills instruction four times weekly for thirty minutes individually with the special education teacher in a resource setting, academic skills instruction four times weekly for twenty minutes delivered by the general education teacher in the general education setting, fine motor skills once weekly for thirty minutes individually, and language and communication services once daily for twenty minutes individually. The March 17, 2025 IEP also provided indirect occupational therapy consultation of fifteen minutes once per quarter, indirect speech and language consultation of thirty minutes once per month through June 18, 2025, adult support of 1,980 minutes per week, and board certified assistant behavior analyst consultation of sixty minutes four times per month. Extended school year services of 150 minutes of small group academic skills instruction once weekly from July 7, 2025 through August 1, 2025 were added. At the meeting the parent requested a daily communication log and asked what the plan would be when the adult support was absent. Tr. 214; B-41.
  10. A PPT meeting was held on May 6, 2025. The team added door to door transportation with a monitor and a harness, revised the behavior intervention plan to remove language describing the Student’s aggression and property destruction as intentional, and updated the behavior analyst services. Tr. 217-219; B-44. The May 6, 2025 IEP carried forward the same services as the March 17, 2025 IEP. B-44.
  11. The Student was in a general education class during the 2024-2025 school year except when pulled out for specialized instruction and related services. B-44; B-75. The Student’s second grade general education class during the 2025-2026 school year contained twenty-four to twenty-five students. Tr. 477. On the first marking period report card for the 2024-2025 school year the Student received a grade of 1 in guided reading, a grade of 1 in mathematics and a grade of 1 in humanities. B-33. The mathematics comment for that cycle states that the Student earned a 0 in mathematics, a score calculated by weighing the interim assessment score, counting proficiency and daily lesson scores. B-33. The humanities comment for that cycle states that in Fundations the Student was averaging 0 percent, which is well below benchmark. B-33. On the third marking period report card for the 2024-2025 school year the Student received a grade of 2 in guided reading, a grade of 3 in mathematics and a grade of 1 in humanities. B-51. The mathematics grade of 3 is at benchmark for the end of first grade, and that grade is made up of daily exit tickets, counting proficiency, quizzes, interim assessments and MAP tests. B-51. On the mCLASS assessment of foundational reading skills the Student scored 399 in the third marking period of the 2024-2025 school year, which is well below benchmark and forty-two points below the benchmark score of 441. B-51. In Fundations the Student was averaging two percent in the third marking period, which is well below benchmark. B-51. On the Edmark Reading Test, which measures sight word recognition and reading fluency, the Student scored 83 percent, described as strong recognition of practiced vocabulary. B-51.
  12. The Board funded an independent neuropsychological evaluation at the parent’s request and agreed to the evaluator the parent selected. Tr. 220-221, 646-647. The evaluation was conducted on June 2, 2025. B-50; Tr. 517. The evaluator observed the Student in his classroom, at lunch, in a speech session, in the music room and at recess. Tr. 521, 556. During the classroom observation the Student needed continuous prompting from the paraeducator, made odd noises, perseverated on objects in his hands, and was easily redirected. Tr. 519-524, 552. The instruments administered included the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fifth Edition (“WISC-V”) and selected subtests of the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, Fourth Edition (“WIAT-4”), among others. B-50; Tr. 524-525. On the WISC-V, the Student’s full scale intelligence quotient was 47, below the 0.1 percentile. Tr. 533; B-50. The only WIAT-4 scores reported in this evaluation were receptive vocabulary and expressive vocabulary, and no achievement composite was produced. B-50. The Student’s receptive and expressive language skills fell at the 3rd and 4th percentiles. Tr. 538; B-50. The diagnoses rendered were autism spectrum disorder with accompanying intellectual and language impairment requiring very substantial support, and developmental coordination disorder with dysgraphia. Tr. 547-548; B-50. The evaluation includes eighteen pages of recommendations. Tr. 268, 548-551. The Student responds best to overlearned, drilled and familiar tasks in a structured and consistent environment, and the consistent assignment of support staff is strongly recommended. Tr. 268-269; B-50. The evaluation recommends that the Student’s daily routine include a great deal of structure, consistency and regularity, that his tasks be short and well within his attention span, small group instruction or one to one instruction as needed, and separate areas for group interaction and quiet activities in order to minimize the interruptions created by other students in the class, among other things. B-50. The evaluation recommends an assistive technology evaluation and ongoing consultation. B-50. The evaluation recommends ongoing, regular and consistent speech related services with a certified speech therapist with experience working with students of a similar profile. B-50. The evaluation states that continuation of services as outlined in his IEP is strongly recommended. B-50.
  13. A PPT meeting was held on June 17, 2025. B-55. The team reviewed the independent evaluation and recommended targeted assessments in speech and language with a focus on pragmatics, and a sensory processing profile. Tr. 222-224; B-55. A PPT meeting was held on September 12, 2025 at the parent’s request. B-61; Tr. 225. The Student’s IEP was reviewed and was not revised. B-61; Tr. 230-231. Progress reports on the Student’s IEP goals and objectives were issued on March 10, 2025, March 17, 2025 and June 17, 2025. B-37; B-39; B-54. At all progress reporting periods the Student was either demonstrating mastery of objectives or making satisfactory progress, and some of the satisfactory progress was close to mastery. Tr. 241. The record of the September 12, 2025 meeting lists as members present the parent, the administrator, the general education teacher, the occupational therapist, the family advocate, the speech and language pathologist, a board certified behavior analyst retained by the parent and the Achievement First principal. The rows headed Student’s General Education Teacher, Special Education Teacher and Magnet School Representative carry the entries “Appropriate Gen Ed Teacher” and “Appropriate School Staff” and name no individual. The record states that at that time a special education teacher was not assigned to the second grade at Achievement First due to staffing concerns. B-61.
  14. The 2025-2026 school year began on August 21, 2025. B-75. No special education teacher was assigned to the second grade at Achievement First at the start of the school year. B-61; Tr. 226. [REDACTED] was hired in early October 2025 and his official start date was the end of October 2025. Tr. 393. His push-in support in the general education classroom began at the end of October or the beginning of November 2025. Tr. 459. Before he began, the general education teacher consulted special education teachers in the third and fourth grades, the academic dean, the speech and language pathologist and the paraeducator. Tr. 450-451. As of October 27, 2025 the Student was owed 540 minutes of the in-class instruction and 780 minutes of the pull-out instruction. B-73. By letter dated January 7, 2026 the Student was to receive an additional thirty minutes of in-class instruction and an additional seventy minutes of pull-out instruction each week until the owed time was made up. B-73; Tr. 413. The owed hours were reported as completed as scheduled. Tr. 414.
  15. The WIAT-4 was administered beginning on October 30, 2025 over three days. Tr. 401, 404-405. The Student’s Total Achievement composite fell at the 0.6 percentile and in the extremely low range. The Reading composite fell in the very low range at the 3rd percentile, the Written Expression composite fell at the 2nd percentile and in the extremely low range, and the Mathematics composite fell at the 0.1 percentile and in the extremely low range. On the core subtests the Student scored at the 2nd percentile in Word Reading, the 3rd percentile in Reading Comprehension, the 2nd percentile in Spelling, the 2nd percentile in Sentence Composition, below the 0.1 percentile in Math Problem Solving and the 2nd percentile in Numerical Operations. On the supplemental measures he scored at the 0.1 percentile in Phonemic Proficiency and the 0.3 percentile in Oral Reading Fluency. On the Alphabet Writing Fluency supplemental subtest the Student obtained a standard score of 136 at the 99.2 percentile, with an age equivalent above ten years ten months and a grade equivalent above the ninth month of fourth grade. B-66.
  16. A speech and language evaluation report dated November 7, 2025 was prepared by the speech and language pathologist at Achievement First, who served as the Student’s case manager. B-67; B-61; Tr. 111. The instruments administered included the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals, Fifth Edition (“CELF-5”) and the Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation, Third Edition (“GFTA-3”), among others. Tr. 139; B-67. On the CELF-5 every index fell below the 1st percentile, the Core Language score at the 0.2 percentile, the Receptive Language score at the 0.1 percentile, the Expressive Language score at the 0.2 percentile, the Language Content score at the 0.1 percentile and the Language Structure score at the 0.3 percentile. B-67. The Student scored below the 1st percentile on measures of expressive and receptive one word vocabulary and below the 0.1 percentile on the GFTA-3. Tr. 140-141; B-67. On the VB-MAPP the Student mastered nearly all of Level 1, made progress at Level 2, and improved his barriers assessment score from forty-nine to forty. Tr. 143-144, 158.
  17. An occupational therapy assessment dated November 7, 2025 consisted of a sensory profile completed by the parent, the paraeducator and the occupational therapist, together with a school observation of lunch and a mathematics lesson. Tr. 83-86; B-68. The observation recorded limited engagement with peers at lunch, continual fidgeting and repositioning, movement and scripting during the mathematics lesson, and limited visual attention to the source of instruction. Tr. 86-90; B-68. The assessment recommended increasing indirect consultation time and non-contingent structured movement breaks throughout the day, among other things. Tr. 90-92; B-68.
  18. By November 2025 the Student identified fifty-two of fifty-four uppercase and lowercase letter names, wrote dictated letter names, matched letters, and sat and listened to a read aloud of an illustrated age appropriate story. He had difficulty receptively identifying all twenty-six letter sounds consistently, identifying twenty-one of twenty-six, and had difficulty identifying target instructional level high frequency and vocabulary words and matching picture cards to words, phrases or sentences. B-75. The Student identified seven of the fifteen letter sounds targeted by his objective when the special education teacher began working with him in late October 2025 and fourteen of that fifteen by the first marking period in November 2025. Tr. 406-407; B-69. By January 2026 the Student had surpassed the thirty high frequency words in his objective. Tr. 416, 433. The Student was having significant difficulty independently decoding unfamiliar words by applying letter sound knowledge, and the number of sounds he produced correctly in one minute did not reach the benchmark. Tr. 463-464, 502. The Student struggled to independently read books at levels below second grade text and would not be able to read a typical second grade passage independently and answer questions on it. Tr. 491. In mathematics the Student progressed during the 2025-2026 school year from single digit to two-digit addition and subtraction problems. Tr. 412. With support and concrete coin materials the Student showed an ability to recognize and identify coins and their values. Tr. 467. The Student’s progression in mathematics was stronger than his progression in reading. Tr. 412. The Student’s mathematics work was modified, story problems were rewritten to include a number sentence, and his mathematics participation grade was based on completing the tasks put before him during the lesson rather than on the exit ticket given to the general education students. Tr. 466, 478. The Student received an honor roll certificate for mathematics based on criteria that included counting proficiency, growth on assessments and daily mathematics grades, which were often modified. Tr. 479; P-15.
  19. On the November 21, 2025 progress report each of the ten annual goals carried a status of satisfactory progress. B-69. Per the existing behavior intervention plan, there was daily data collection on all of the listed behaviors. Tr. 325; B-32. Daily data was collected by the Student’s paraeducator on sheets divided by class period and totaled at the end of each day, and was graphed and reviewed by the board certified behavior analyst. Tr. 325, 340-341, 344. The behavior analyst assigned to Achievement First from September 2025 visited the school one day per week and spent approximately twenty to thirty minutes of that visit observing or working with the Student. Tr. 302, 366.
  20. The behavior summary dated January 14, 2026 records zero levels of physical aggression and zero levels of property destruction for the 2025-2026 school year. Out of seat behavior decreased from ten incidents per day in August 2025 to one, remained between zero and two with one day at five in October, and remained at one or fewer in November and December with the exception of one day in December. Whimpering precedes crying and typically occurs when the Student is delayed or denied access to a preferred item or is corrected on a difficult or non-preferred academic task. Crying decreased from a range of ten to fifteen to zero during September and the first part of October, increased to a range of five to ten in late October and November, and then decreased below five. B-74. Scripting continued at variable levels and was the behavior occurring at the highest frequency. Tr. 339, 345-346. The zero levels reported for the 2025-2026 school year concern unsafe behavior such as aggression and property destruction, and the Student continued to engage in scripting. Tr. 377.
  21. A PPT meeting was convened on January 14, 2026. B-75; Tr. 248-249. The Student’s reading was the parent’s stated concern at the meeting, and she inquired about his reading progress and about moving his scores closer to grade level. B-75; Tr. 251. The parent and her attorney requested an out of district special education placement. Tr. 97, 420.
  22. The Board refused the request for an out of district placement on the ground that the targeted assessments, the review of progress with current goals and objectives, the increase in special education services to include small group reading instruction, the revision of the speech and language goals and the additional indirect occupational therapy services continued to meet the Student’s academic, social and emotional and behavioral needs in a setting with access to non-disabled peers. B-80. Twelve prior written notices were issued from the seven planning and placement team meetings held between September 3, 2024 and January 14, 2026, and each states that no other options were considered and rejected. B-14; B-15; B-16; B-29; B-30; B-42; B-45; B-56; B-62; B-63; B-80; B-81. The prior written notice refusing the September 12, 2025 request states that no other options were considered and rejected and states, as the reason for rejecting other options, that the Student would not receive an appropriate program in the least restrictive environment. B-62. The prior written notice refusing the January 14, 2026 request states that no other options were considered and rejected and that there are no other factors relevant to the planning and placement team decision. B-80.
  23. The team recommended updating the speech and language goals, increasing indirect occupational therapy consultation to fifteen minutes per month, and increasing special education services to four sessions of thirty minutes per week of small group reading instruction. B-75. The increase in small group reading instruction was recommended in response to the parent’s concern about the Student’s reading. Tr. 252; B-81. The January 14, 2026 IEP requires academic skills instruction four times weekly for thirty minutes individually in a resource setting, academic skills instruction four times weekly for twenty minutes delivered by the general education teacher in the general education setting, and, from February 5, 2026, academic skills instruction four times weekly for thirty minutes in small group instruction in a resource setting. The IEP requires fine motor skills services once weekly for thirty minutes individually and language and communication services once daily for twenty minutes individually, each in a related service setting. The IEP requires indirect occupational therapy consultation of fifteen minutes per quarter through February 4, 2026 and fifteen minutes per month thereafter, one to one paraeducator support of 1,980 minutes per week, which is thirty-three hours, and board certified assistant behavior analyst consultation of sixty minutes four times per month. The indirect speech and language consultation of thirty minutes per month ended on June 18, 2025 and was not renewed. The IEP contains fourteen annual goals in reading, mathematics, pre-academic skills, communication and fine motor skills. The supplementary aids and services include presentation of one small chunk of work at a time, visual supports paired with verbal directives, access to sensory and movement breaks, noise cancelling headphones, access to alternative methods of communication and flexible seating, among others. The only modification listed is modified tests and curriculum in all areas. Extended school year services are listed as 150 minutes of small group academic skills instruction once weekly from July 7, 2025 through August 1, 2025, the same dates that appear in the March 17, 2025 IEP, and no related services are listed for the extended school year. B-75. The parent was advised at the January 14, 2026 meeting that the individualized education program could be implemented by the Hartford Public Schools if she withdrew the Student from the charter school and re-enrolled him in the Hartford Public Schools. Tr. 660-661. The fine motor goals address writing his name given visual modifications that are faded over time. The communication goals address gaining adult attention, requesting the termination of an activity, and following one-step safety directions such as wait, stop and sit.
  24. The Student’s one to one paraeducator was assigned to him in the first grade and continued with him in the second grade. Tr. 448. The paraeducator sits beside the Student, prompts and redirects him, implements the behavior intervention plan and the token board, collects the daily behavior data, and supports his transitions and bathroom trips. Tr. 89, 325, 459-460, 468. The paraeducator is with the Student throughout the day other than at lunch and at dismissal. Tr. 485-486.

VI. Conclusions Of Law

The burden of proof in Connecticut special education cases is not the federal default. In Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 62 (2005), the Supreme Court held that the burden of persuasion in an administrative hearing under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act lies with the party seeking relief, and expressly left open whether a state may allocate the burden otherwise. Connecticut has allocated it otherwise. Under Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies § 10-76h-14, the public agency has the burden of proving the appropriateness of the child's program or placement.

1. Did the BOE fail to provide the Student with appropriate IEPs on September 12, 2025 and January 14, 2026? If so, did the BOE deny the Student a Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”)?

Petitioner contended that the IEPs: 1) failed to provide appropriate specialized instruction and sufficient special education services; 2) failed to provide appropriate communication supports; 3) failed to provide appropriate behavioral supports including a behavior intervention plan; 4) failed to provide measurable and appropriate IEP goals; 5) failed to provide appropriate services to address the Student's unique needs as a nonverbal student with autism and intellectual disability; 6) provided the Student with a school setting without sufficient staffing, supports, and related services; 7) failed to address the Student's adaptive needs.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires a state that accepts federal funds to make a FAPE available to every eligible child with a disability residing in the state. 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. A FAPE consists of special education and related services provided at public expense, meeting state standards, and furnished in conformity with an IEP developed under the Act. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9). Connecticut implements these obligations through General Statutes § 10-76a et seq. and the regulations promulgated thereunder.

In Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 (1982), the Court set out a two-part inquiry. The first asks whether the state has complied with the procedures set forth in the Act. The second asks whether the IEP developed through those procedures was reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits. The Court elaborated on that standard in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, 580 U.S. 386, 399 (2017), where it rejected the proposition that an IEP satisfies the Act if it is calculated to confer a benefit that is merely more than de minimis. The Court instead held that a child's educational program must be appropriately ambitious in light of his circumstances, and that where a child is not advancing from grade to grade the goals in the program must be challenging. Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 402. The Court further held that a board's judgment is entitled to deference only when the board can offer a cogent and responsive explanation for its decisions. Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 404.

The Act does not require a board to furnish every special service necessary to maximize a child’s potential, but the program offered must be likely to produce progress rather than regression and must afford the child more than trivial advancement. Walczak v. Florida Union Free School District, 142 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 1998). The adequacy of an IEP is judged prospectively, as of the time it was developed, and not with the benefit of hindsight. Mr. P. v. West Hartford Board of Education, 885 F.3d 735 (2d Cir. 2018). An IEP must contain a statement of the special education, related services and supplementary aids and services to be provided, based on peer reviewed research to the extent practicable, designed to meet the child’s needs that result from the disability so as to enable him to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum, together with measurable annual goals designed to meet those needs. 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(2), (a)(4).

The school district's program kept the Student in a general education class of twenty-four to twenty-five students for all but about four hours of the week, counting every service that took him out of the classroom. The program called for him to leave that room for two hours of individual instruction with the special education teacher in a resource setting, for one hour and forty minutes of individual speech and language therapy, and for thirty minutes of individual fine motor work. The only specially designed instruction the program placed inside the general education classroom was four twenty minute sessions per week. No special education teacher was assigned to the second grade when the school year began, and by October 27, 2025 the Student was owed 540 minutes of that in-class instruction.

However, the Student, whose full scale intelligence quotient falls below the 0.1 percentile, did not make significant progress in this setting. The only normed reading measure the Student took that year was mCLASS. On the mCLASS assessment of foundational reading skills he scored 399 in the third marking period, well below benchmark and forty-two points short of the benchmark score of 441. In Fundations, a phonics program, the Student was averaging zero percent of that target in the fall, and only two percent by the spring. Both marks were well below benchmark. On a language and learning inventory administered on November 19, 2024, the Student’s mastered skills were concentrated at the first of its three levels, which covers what a typical child learns between birth and eighteen months, with only scattered skills above it. The independent evaluation of June 2, 2025 reported two vocabulary scores and no reading or writing score at all.

Indeed, no comprehensive achievement testing was administered until October 30, 2025, in the fall of second grade. That testing placed the Student’s reading at about the 3rd percentile, with reading single words at the 2nd percentile and reading comprehension at the 3rd percentile. Hearing and working with the individual sounds inside spoken words placed him at the 0.1 percentile. Reading a passage aloud placed him at the 0.3 percentile. The writing scores were similar. Written expression overall fell at the 2nd percentile, with spelling at the 2nd percentile and composing a sentence at the 2nd percentile.

Moreover, I was not convinced by the language in the IEE report that bears on the Student’s program, which states that continuation of services as outlined in his IEP is strongly recommended. The testimony describing the benefits of the general education setting spoke to participation, classroom routine and exposure to typical peers, and identified no measured academic gain. The academic data offered to show that the Student was receiving educational benefit appropriate to his needs began with a counting goal he had already met in the first grade. The other two measures identified pointed the other way: the Student had not independently organized tiles by tens, and on a reading assessment using made up words he identified no words by sight and did not reach the benchmark number of correct letter sounds in one minute. The IEE report in fact, finds that the Student responds best to overlearned, drilled and familiar tasks in a structured and consistent environment, and it calls for a daily routine with a great deal of structure, consistency and regularity. It also calls for shorter tasks well within his attention span, for small group or one to one instruction as needed, and for separate areas for quiet activities that minimize the interruptions other students in the class create, among other things. A report calling for short tasks, small group instruction and physical separation from noise and from other children is not an endorsement of a class of twenty-four to twenty-five students.

Moreover, there is no evidence that the Student is forming relationships in the general education classroom. His classmates respond to him respectfully and he sits among them at lunch, but no witness identified a friendship or a preferred classmate. The special education teacher was asked whether the Student is conversational and whether he has had conversations with him or with his peers. His answer was that the Student does not have full-on conversations. Indeed, the Student does not have enough language to be able to communicate easily with same age peers.

The Board contends that the Student nevertheless made progress under the program in place for the 2024-2025 school year and that continuing it was therefore appropriate. The record does show that by the end of that year the Student had acclimated to the school and to classroom routines and had made progress in his behavior.

But the record does not establish that the work that was being judged was the actual product of the Student. Rather, the progress on goals, and on class work, appears to be a function of the Student’s close collaboration with a paraeducator rather than of the Student’s own performance. The paraeducator sits beside the Student and is at his side throughout the day except at lunch and at dismissal. The general education teacher testified that his daily math grades were often modified and reflected his participation and completion of work with the supports that were provided. He testified that the Student’s mathematics participation grade was earned on the modified task put in front of him during the lesson rather than on the exit ticket the other second graders completed, that such a participation grade does not show independent mastery of the standard being assessed, and that the Student did not do the work independently to the extent a typical second grade student did.

The Board also attributes the Student’s significantly low academic and pre-academic skills to the absence of a kindergarten experience rather than to any deficiency in the program it offered. However, this argument disregards the fact that the Student is a student with autism who is functioning far below level with an intelligence quotient that is below the 0.1 percentile.

It is significant that twelve prior written notices, issued from seven meetings between September 2024 and January 2026, all state that no other options were considered and rejected. The notice refusing the September 12, 2025 request states both that no other options were considered and rejected and, as the reason for rejecting other options, that the Student would not receive an appropriate program in the least restrictive environment. When the parent’s advocate sought a more restrictive setting, such as a modified class, the answer was that the school had no such class. A board that selects a program from its own inventory rather than from the needs of the child before it has not made the individualized determination the Act requires, and it cannot offer the cogent and responsive explanation on which deference depends. Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 404.

The Board’s remaining point is that the Student must be educated in the least restrictive environment and that a general education class with non-disabled peers serves that end. That preference is not absolute. Removal from the general education class is permitted where education in that class, with the use of supplementary aids and services, cannot be achieved satisfactorily. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.114(a)(2); P. ex rel. Mr. and Mrs. P. v. Newington Board of Education, 546 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2008). That condition is met on this record. The Student has received a full range of supplementary aids and services, including full time one to one adult support, modified work and grading, and access to sensory and movement breaks, among others, and after two years in that arrangement his reading and writing are at the 2nd and 3rd percentiles and his measured skills on the core achievement subtests are those of a child who has not completed first grade. A student’s least restrictive environment means the least restrictive setting consistent with that student’s needs, and not the least restrictive setting the district chooses to make available, and the requirement is not limited by the range of programs the district already offers. T.M. v. Cornwall Central School District, 752 F.3d 145, 163-65 (2d Cir. 2014). This Hearing Officer concludes that the program reviewed and continued on September 12, 2025 was not reasonably calculated to enable the Student to make progress appropriate in light of his circumstances, and that the Board thereby denied the Student a FAPE.

With respect to the IEP developed on January 14, 2026, by that date the team had the results of the academic achievement testing it had ordered. That testing placed the Student’s total achievement at the 0.6 percentile, his mathematics composite at the 0.1 percentile, his written expression composite at the 2nd percentile and his reading composite at about the 3rd percentile, with age equivalents on the core subtests ranging from below four years two months to five years six months and grade equivalents on those subtests ranging from below prekindergarten to the fourth month of kindergarten, in a child who had by then completed a year and a half of school. The speech and language testing placed every language index below the 1st percentile.

The team's response was to add four thirty minute sessions per week of small group reading instruction, to update the speech and language goals, and to increase indirect occupational therapy consultation from fifteen minutes per quarter to fifteen minutes per month. Special education instruction, measured in service minutes rather than in time spent outside the general education classroom, rose from three and one third hours per week to five and one third hours per week.

However, nothing was added in mathematics, notwithstanding a mathematics composite at the 0.1 percentile. Nothing was added in written expression, notwithstanding a written expression composite at the 2nd percentile. The Student remained in a general education classroom of twenty-four to twenty-five students for over eighty percent of the week. Counting the four twenty minute push-in sessions along with the individual and small group pull-out, contact with a special education teacher came to five hours and twenty minutes of a thirty-three hour week. Additionally, the record again discloses no consideration of whether the instructional approach or the setting should change, and the two prior written notices issued that day again state that no other options were considered and rejected.

This Hearing Officer concludes that the individualized education program developed on January 14, 2026 was not reasonably calculated to enable the Student to make progress appropriate in light of his circumstances, and that the Board thereby denied the Student a FAPE.

The first contention, that the IEPs failed to provide appropriate specialized instruction and sufficient special education services, is sustained for the reasons stated above. With respect to the remaining contentions, this Hearing Officer disagrees that the Student's speech and language services were inadequate. The Student receives twenty minutes of individual speech and language therapy from a certified speech and language pathologist every school day, together with indirect consultation, and that provider evaluated him in the fall of 2024 and again in the fall of 2025, wrote his goals, delivered the service and served as his case manager for part of the period at issue. Her opinion that the frequency and duration were appropriate stands unrebutted. The independent neuropsychological evaluation the Board funded at the parent's request recommended ongoing, regular and consistent speech related services with a certified speech therapist experienced with students of a similar profile, which describes the service the Student receives.

The related contention that the IEPs failed to provide appropriate communication supports is also not sustained. Each program provides twenty minutes of individual language and communication services every school day and carries communication goals, and the supplementary aids and services in the January 14, 2026 program include access to alternative methods of communication, a communication device and picture symbols. The independent evaluation also recommended an assistive technology evaluation, and the record does not show that one was conducted, but it does not show that the Student’s communication needs went unmet for want of it. The speech generating device the Student has is one the parent provides and he brings with him, he communicates verbally in his speech sessions, and he has not been observed using the device with another adult or student. The deficiency in these programs lies in the academic instruction and the setting, not in the communication supports the programs provide.

The contention that the Student did not receive adequate behavioral services is likewise unpersuasive. A functional behavioral assessment was conducted, a behavior intervention plan was developed from it, the plan was revised at the parent's request, daily data was collected on each defined target behavior, and the two behaviors the plan was written to address were eliminated over the period at issue. Nor is this Hearing Officer persuaded that the goals in these IEPs were defective. The program continued on September 12, 2025 contains ten annual goals, and the January 14, 2026 program contains fourteen, covering reading, mathematics, pre-academic skills, communication and fine motor skills. Since the Student had not mastered the goals from the previous school year, it was appropriate to continue them in September 2025, and the goals were revised in January 2026 on the basis of the evaluations.

Finally, this Hearing Officer also disagrees with the contention that the recommended program did not address the Student's adaptive needs. General Statutes § 1-1g(b) defines adaptive behavior as the effectiveness or degree with which an individual meets the standards of personal independence and social responsibility expected for the individual's age and cultural group. Those skills are addressed in the Student's goals. The fine motor goals address writing his name. The communication goals address gaining adult attention, requesting the termination of an activity and following one-step safety directions. The behavior intervention plan teaches the replacement behaviors of asking for help, asking for a break, cooperating with directed activities and maintaining a safe body. The Board's evidence that these skills are addressed in the goals and in the behavior intervention plan stands unrebutted.

Two contentions remain. The fifth is framed in terms of the Student’s needs as a nonverbal student. The record does not establish that the Student is nonverbal. He uses verbal language, requests preferred items in single words, answers simple yes and no questions with prompting, and responds to and returns greetings. The substance of that contention, whether the programs addressed his needs as a student with autism and intellectual impairment, is resolved in his favor for the reasons stated above, and rests on the severity of his measured deficits rather than on the absence of speech. The sixth contention, that the Board provided a school setting without sufficient staffing, supports and related services, is sustained for the reasons stated above as to the program continued on September 12, 2025 and as to the January 14, 2026 program. The ground is the setting and the amount of specialized instruction the programs provided, and not the related services, which are addressed above.

For the foregoing reasons, the Board failed to provide the Student with appropriate IEPs on September 12, 2025 and January 14, 2026, and thereby denied the Student a FAPE.

2. Did the BOE fail to arrange for the September 12, 2025 and January 14, 2026 IEP meetings to have all the required participants, and fail to allow the parent to meaningfully participate in the meetings?

Petitioner contended that the planning and placement teams that convened on September 12, 2025 and January 14, 2026 did not include all of the participants the regulations require, and that she was not allowed to participate meaningfully in either meeting.

An IEP team must include the parent, not less than one regular education teacher of the child if the child is or may be participating in the regular education environment, and not less than one special education teacher of the child or, where appropriate, not less than one special education provider of the child, among other members. 34 C.F.R. § 300.321(a).

The September 12, 2025 meeting was attended by the parent, her advocate, her privately retained behavior analyst, the Board's administrator, the Student's general education teacher, the occupational therapist, the speech and language pathologist and the Achievement First principal. No special education teacher of the Student attended, because none was assigned to him. The Board's position is that its administrator, who holds comprehensive special education certification, filled the role. She was not the Student's special education teacher or provider, and the regulation requires a teacher or provider of the child. The requirement was not met.

The failure is procedural, and under 34 C.F.R. § 300.513(a)(2) it supports a finding of denial of a FAPE only if it impeded the Student's right to a FAPE, significantly impeded the parent's opportunity to participate in the decision-making process, or caused a deprivation of educational benefit. No one present at the September 12, 2025 meeting was responsible for the specialized instruction the program required or able to speak to it, at the very meeting convened to consider whether that program remained appropriate. The defect contributed directly to the substantive failure found above, and this Hearing Officer concludes that it impeded the Student's right to a FAPE.

The January 14, 2026 meeting was attended by the parent and her attorney, the Student's general education teacher, his special education teacher, the Board's administrator, the charter school representative, the occupational therapist, the speech and language pathologist and the behavior analyst. That team was properly constituted.

Finally, the contention that the parent was denied meaningful participation is not sustained. She attended both meetings, at the first with an advocate and a behavior analyst of her own choosing and at the second with counsel. Each of them spoke, asked questions and stated objections, and no one prevented them from doing so. Participation that does not produce the outcome a parent seeks is not for that reason participation denied. 34 C.F.R. § 300.501(b); Mr. P., 885 F.3d 735.

For the foregoing reasons, the Board failed to arrange for the September 12, 2025 meeting to have all the required participants and thereby denied the Student a FAPE, the January 14, 2026 meeting had all the required participants, and the Parent was not denied the opportunity to participate meaningfully in either meeting.

Relief

As relief, Petitioner seeks placement in a therapeutic special education program outside the district, compensatory education and related services.

When a student is denied a FAPE, the statute directs the court to grant such relief as it determines is appropriate. School Committee of the Town of Burlington, Massachusetts v. Department of Education of Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359, 369 (1985). Hearing officers have the same broad discretion.

The parent seeks an out of district placement. The record suggests that the Student was provided with the IEPs at issue largely because the Student had been enrolled at a charter school with limited options. The record also indicates that the Student would benefit from a program with small classes and instruction from a certified special education teacher. The independent evaluation supports that conclusion, recommending small group or one to one instruction as needed, tasks that are short and well within his attention span, and a daily routine with a great deal of structure, consistency and regularity. Still, the parent has presented no evidence about a specific placement that might be appropriate for the Student. Nor has she explained why an out of district placement is superior to a public school placement. I therefore direct the school district to review the Student’s program and offer him academic instruction in small classes with a certified special education teacher in the room. Settings of that kind must be available as part of the continuum of alternative placements that every public agency is required to make available. 34 C.F.R. § 300.115(b)(1).

Compensatory education is an available remedy for a denial of a FAPE, and is equitable in nature. Doe v. East Lyme Board of Education, 790 F.3d 440 (2d Cir. 2015); Somoza v. New York City Department of Education, 538 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2008). An award is intended to place the child in the position he would have occupied had the board complied with its obligations, and must be reasonably calculated to provide the educational benefits that likely would have accrued from the special education services the district should have supplied in the first place. Doe, 790 F.3d at 456-57. The inquiry is qualitative and fact intensive, and the award is tailored to the unique needs of the individual student. Reid ex rel. Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 518, 524 (D.C. Cir. 2005). A mechanical hour for hour formula is not permitted. Reid, 401 F.3d at 523. Where a violation is established, the fact finder must fashion an appropriate award and may not decline to do so because the record is imperfect. B.D. v. District of Columbia, 817 F.3d 792, 799 (D.C. Cir. 2016).

The programs found inadequate above governed from September 12, 2025 through the end of the 2025-2026 school year. Taking account of the length of the deprivation, the severity of the Student's deficits and the rate at which he acquires skills, an award of 200 hours of compensatory services is appropriate. The parent may elect to take that award in the form of individual academic tutoring, applied behavior analysis services, or a combination of the two.

VII. Order

As a result of the foregoing:

  1. The Board denied the Student a free appropriate public education by the individualized education program reviewed and continued on September 12, 2025, by the individualized education program developed on January 14, 2026, and by failing to arrange for the September 12, 2025 planning and placement team meeting to have all the required participants;
  2. The Board shall, within thirty days of the date of this decision, convene the planning and placement team to determine the Student’s placement from the continuum of alternative placements and the extent of his participation with non-disabled peers, and shall offer the parent a program in which the Student receives his academic instruction in small classes with a certified special education teacher in the room;
  3. The Board shall provide the Student with 200 hours of compensatory services, to be taken at the parent's election as individual academic tutoring, applied behavior analysis services, or a combination of the two, to be provided by a qualified provider at a reasonable and customary rate;
  4. The request for placement in an out of district therapeutic special education program is denied;
  5. All other requests for relief are denied.

VIII. Notice Of Appeal Rights

This is the final administrative decision in this matter. Any party aggrieved by this decision may bring a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2) and General Statutes §§ 10-76h(d)(4) and 4-183. An appeal to the Superior Court must be filed within forty-five days of the mailing of this decision. An action brought in a District Court of the United States must be brought within ninety days of the date of this decision.

Dated: September 17, 2026
Michael S. Lazan
Impartial Hearing Officer