Final Decision and Order Case #26-0456

August 5, 2026

Student¹ v. Stamford Board of Education

Appearing on behalf of Student:
Attorney Lawrence Berliner
Law Office of Lawrence Berliner LLC
1720 Post Road, Suite 214E
Westport, CT 06880

Appearing on behalf of the Board of Education:
Attorney Colleen Deasy
Assistant Corporation Counsel
City of Stamford
888 Washington Blvd., 9th Floor
Stamford, CT 06901

Appearing before:
Janis C. Jerman
Hearing Officer

Final Decision And Order

Procedural Posture

Student’s Attorney filed a Request for Due Process Hearing dated February 22, 2026² (Exh. HO-1) ³ pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act⁴ (IDEA). The Board of Education (BOE) received the Request for Hearing on February 23. The undersigned Hearing Officer was appointed to this case on February 23. The 30-day resolution period ended March 25 and the original deadline to mail the final decision and order was May 9.

At the February 27 telephonic prehearing conference, Attorney Berliner appeared on behalf of Student and Attorney Deasy appeared on behalf of BOE. The following issues were identified:

Did the Board of Education fail to provide Student with a free appropriate public education during the 2025-26 school year by:
1. failing to provide Student an appropriately ambitious Individualized Education Program that is reasonably calculated to allow Student to make meaningful progress;
2. failing to consider private evaluations;
3. predetermining Student’s educational program;
4. failing to offer Student a continuum of alternative placements; and/or
5. failing to allow Student’s Parents meaningful participation in Student’s education decisions?
If the answer to Issue One is affirmative, what shall be the remedy?
If the answer to Issue One is affirmative, is Villa Maria School an appropriate placement for Student?
If the answer to Issue Three is affirmative, shall Student be placed at Villa Maria School at public expense?

The Request for Hearing cites Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act⁵ (Section 504). The jurisdiction of a Hearing Officer appointed under 34 CFR § 300.500 et seq. and Conn.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. Jurisdiction over Section 504 claims was declined as it is not necessary to resolve the IDEA claims.

The parties participated in a resolution meeting on March 23 without reaching resolution.

Each party requested two days to present their respective cases. Absent permission by the Hearing Officer for good cause shown, each party was granted two days to present their respective cases, including resolving evidentiary objectives, offering rebuttal, and making opening and/or closing arguments.

BOE’s Attorney requested that hearings be held in-person. Hearings were scheduled and held via Zoom videoconference at the request of Student’s Attorney. Hearing was scheduled for April 14. On April 6, BOE’s Attorney filed a Motion to Recuse the Hearing Officer on the basis that Student’s Attorney inadvertently copied the Hearing Officer on emails related to a confidential settlement offer. Due to a technology glitch, the Hearing Officer did not receive the emails prior to receiving the Motion to Recuse, did not open or read the emails, and did not have any knowledge of the parties’ settlement discussions or other confidential information that could impact the ability to be fair and impartial in this case. The Motion to Recuse was denied.

On April 10, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Facts. (Exh. HO-2) The hearing was convened on April 14. On the record at the hearing, Student’s Attorney requested a 30-day extension of the deadline to mail the final decision and order to allow the parties to schedule additional hearing dates. After fully considering the parties’ positions, the request was granted and the deadline to mail the final decision and order extended 30 days to June 8. Hearings were scheduled for May 13, 22, and 28.

On May 11, Student’s Attorney filed a Motion for Continuance seeking cancellation of the May 13 hearing due to a death in Student’s family and requested a 30-day extension of the deadline to mail the final decision and order. After fully considering the parties’ positions, the motion was granted. The May 13 hearing was cancelled and the deadline to mail the final decision and order extended 30 days to July 8.

On May 13, the Hearing Officer issued orders regarding the hearing process and presentation of witnesses.

A second day of hearing was convened on May 22. On the record at the hearing, the parties requested a 30-day extension of the deadline to mail the final decision and order to accommodate a July 1 hearing date. After fully considering the parties’ positions, the request was granted and the deadline to mail the final decision and order extended 30 days to August 7. A fourth hearing was scheduled for July 1. The third hearing convened on May 28.

On June 26, the Hearing Officer again issued orders regarding the hearing process and presentation of witnesses. On June 29, Student’s Attorney filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Hearing Officer’s June 26 orders. After fully considering the arguments, the Motion for Reconsideration was denied. Student’s Attorney raised the issue again at the fourth and final hearing on July 1.

Student’s Attorney asked for additional hearing time and argued that the Hearing Officer should draw an adverse inference that testimony from BOE staff who did not testify would have been favorable to Student’s claims that BOE failed to offer Student FAPE. Such an adverse inference is not drawn. BOE’s Attorney notified Student’s Attorney of the availability of BOE staff as witnesses and, in some cases, he chose to schedule his case in an order that did not accommodate their availability when he could have rearranged the order of witnesses.

During the prehearing conference, the parties were informed that they were each granted two hearing days to present their case, including resolving evidentiary objectives, offering rebuttal, and making opening and/or closing arguments. During BOE’s case in chief, BOE’s Attorney spent 3.2 hours on direct examination and Student’s Attorney spent 4.2 hours on cross examination. During Student’s case in chief, Student’s Attorney spent 7.1 hours on direct examination and BOE’s Attorney spent 2.5 hours on cross examination.⁶ Student had ample time to present his case.

In the course of four days of hearing, the following witnesses were questioned and subject to cross-examination under oath: BOE’s Director of Special Education and Related Services; BOE’s Assistant Director of Special Education;⁷ BOE’s Elementary School Assistant Principal;⁸ BOE’s Magnet School Assistant Principal; Assistant Principal of Specialized Instruction; Private Evaluator; Student’s Mother; Head of Private School; and Student’s Father.

On July 21, Student’s Attorney requested an extension of time for the parties to submit post-hearing briefs and a comparable extension of the deadline to mail the final decision and order. After fully considering the parties’ positions, the request was granted. The deadline to mail the final decision and order was extended two business days to August 11. The parties timely submitted post-hearing briefs on July 28.

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 Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA). ⁹

Findings Of Relevant Fact

Qualifications of Witnesses

BOE’s Director of Special Education and Related Services (Director) holds a Bachelor’s degree in math, a Master’s degree in education, curriculum and instruction, and a post graduate certificate in special education, and completed the University of Connecticut Administrator Preparation Program. She worked as a substitute teacher in special education classrooms and then worked as a paraprofessional. She obtained her teaching certificate in special education and taught in multiple states. She holds a Connecticut 092 administrator certificate. Director began working for BOE in 2015 in an Individualized Education Program (IEP) compliance role where she coordinated Planning and Placement Teams (PPTs) and supported IEP development. She then served as assistant director of special education for three years during which she served as case manager and supported building teams and families on more complicated cases. Director just completed her fourth year as Director where she is responsible for oversight and supervision of administrators who support special education, compliance and state reporting, developing programming, grant funding and expenditures, and due process proceedings. (Exh. B-22; Testimony of Director)
Director is familiar with Private School. She has placed students there through an IEP and has a good working relationship with their staff. (Testimony of Director, PS Head)
Assistant Director holds a Bachelor’s degree in speech language pathology and audiology and a Master’s degree in speech language pathology. She holds a Connecticut 092 administrator certificate. She has been employed by BOE for 25 years, serving as a speech language pathologist, individual learning needs coach, extended school year (ESY) head teacher, building test coordinator, SRBI support teacher, and IEP compliance teacher prior to her current role. Assistant Director primarily oversees and supports elementary schools with their special education needs from a central office administrator perspective. She supports schools with more challenging cases, supports staff with professional development and instructional strategies, and oversees specialist programming and curriculum. She is familiar with both BOE’s Elementary School (Elementary School) and Private School. (Exh. B-23; Testimony of Assistant Director)
Elementary Assistant Principal holds a Bachelor’s degree in psychology, Master’s degree in elementary education, and certificate of advanced study in reading intervention. He has worked for BOE for 15 years, serving as an elementary school teacher, SRBI support teacher, administrative intern, and assistant principal. Prior to working for BOE, he worked with young adults with special needs post high school. He holds Elementary Education Grades K-6 and Intermediate Administration certificates. (Exh. B-24; Testimony of Elementary Assistant Principal)
BOE’s Magnet School Assistant Principal (Magnet Assistant Principal) holds a Bachelor’s degree in special education and a Master’s degree in reading education. She has a Sixth Year Degree in administration. She completed the Board Certified Behavior Analyst coursework but did not pursue the examination. She holds the following certifications: elementary education grades K-6 (013), special education grades pre-K-12 (065), reading specialist grades K-8 (102), and intermediate administration (092). She has worked for BOE for 28 years, serving as a preschool autism teacher, head preschool summer school teacher, IEP compliance teacher, assistant director of special education, and assistant principal. Prior to working for BOE, she worked as a preschool teacher servicing students on the autism spectrum, a reading specialist, and ABA therapy provider in a clinic. (Exh. B-25; Testimony of Magnet Assistant Principal)
BOE’s Assistant Principal of Specialized Instruction (Specialized Assistant Principal) holds a Bachelor’s degree in elementary education and psychology, Master’s degree in special education, and 092 certification in educational leadership. She has worked for BOE for thirteen years, serving as elementary special education teacher, elementary general education teacher, IEP compliance teacher, and assistant principal of specialized instruction. (Exh. B-25; Testimony of Specialized Assistant Principal)
Head of Private School (PS Head) holds a Bachelor’s degree in biology and Master’s degree in learning disabilities. He taught at a small school for children with learning disabilities for two years followed by five years as a public school teacher in special education in New York City elementary and high schools. He served as assistant head of school and then head of school at a private school in New York. He has served as Private School’s Head of School for six years. As Head of School, he supervises staff, admissions, and professional development; hires and trains teachers; teaches; meets with staff to prepare for PPT meetings; sits in on most PPT meetings; and debriefs with teachers after every PPT meeting. He is certified in special education in New York and is working toward obtaining a Connecticut 092 administrator’s certificate. PS Head did not attend Student’s PPT meetings. He testified in this case because Private School’s Case Manager who did attend Student’s PPT meetings was on vacation and unavailable. (Exh. S-29; Testimony of PS Head)
Private Evaluator holds Bachelor’s, Master’s, and Doctorate degrees in psychology. He is board certified in behavioral and clinical psychology and is a licensed psychologist in Connecticut and New Jersey. (Exh. S-25; Testimony of Private Evaluator)

Background

Student is eight years old and resides within the jurisdiction of BOE’s school district with his parents. (Exh. HO-2)
Student was developing in some ways and not in others and was referred to the Birth to Three program. (Testimony of Student’s Mother)
Academically, Student has great strengths. (Testimony of PS Head, Student’s Mother, Student’s Father)
BOE has a continuum of services available including full-inclusion in general education, push-in and pull-out services at varying levels, self-contained programming, smaller therapeutic settings, and private residential or day placements. (Testimony of Director, Assistant Director, Elementary Assistant Principal)

2022-23 School Year - Preschool

Student was evaluated for transition from Birth to Three to preschool. He was diagnosed with hypotonia, which was the first indicator of developmental challenges. (Testimony of Student’s Mother)
During the 2022-23 school year, Student attended BOE’s Magnet School. (Exh. HO-2)
Student was found eligible for special education and had an IEP in preschool. (Testimony of Student’s Mother)

2023-24 School Year - Kindergarten

During the 2023-24 school year, Student attended kindergarten at BOE’s Magnet School. (Testimony of Student’s Mother)
During October 2023, November 2023, December 2023 and January 2024, BOE completed assessments including a School Psychologist’s report, an Occupational Therapy report, a Physical Therapy report, a Developmental History, and a Speech and Language report. (Exh. HO-2, B-1, S-1, S-2, S-3, S-4, S-5, S-6)
Student’s October/November 2023 speech language evaluation scores did not meet the state threshold of impairment when compared to same age peers. Student demonstrated relative strength in expressive and receptive language and vocabulary and a relative weakness in articulation. The evaluator noted that he needed redirection or prompts to attend to tasks and had difficulty sustaining attention for long periods. (Exh. B-1, S-1)
Results of Student’s November 2023 educational evaluation indicate that on the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test 4^th Edition (WIAT-IV) subtests he scored in the average range for phonemic proficiency, listening comprehension, math problem solving, oral expression, numerical operations, and spelling; in the very high range for word reading and reading comprehension; and in the low average range for alphabet writing fluency. (Exh. B-1, S-2)
Student’s December 2023 physical therapy evaluation noted that he demonstrates functional gross motor skills, including strength and endurance, for accessing the school environment; challenges with body awareness and position in space; inability to maintain a functional position for seated and floor time work; impulsivity; and decreased attention to task. (Exh. B-1, S-3)
Student’s December 2023 occupational therapy evaluation noted that Student presents with low to normal muscle tone; demonstrates functional postural control and appears to have difficulty maintaining an upright posture for an extended time; seeks and notices sensory input, misses directions, gets too close to others when talking face-to-face, and touches people and objects more than do other students; often needs one-on-one assistance to complete classroom work; and is independent with most daily living tasks needed in the school environment. The evaluator noted that motor coordination appears to be a weakness for Student while visual perception is a strength. The evaluation opined that Student may benefit from additional supports to participate in school, including visuals, additional directions, preferred seating, limited distractions, and completing work in a quieter environment or in a small group away from distractions. (Exh. B-1, S-4)
Student’s December 2023 psychological evaluation noted that Student is a sweet, friendly, capable student who has the cognitive ability to complete academic tasks; requires reminders; is easily redirected; struggles to initiate and complete multi-step tasks independently in the classroom; requires additional behavioral supports such as prompts, positive reinforcements, and one-to-one support to complete multi-step academic tasks; has difficulty keeping his hands to himself, staying in his seat, and refraining from disrupting others. Student’s teacher noted clinically significant concerns with Student’s inattention and hyperactivity. Student’s overall executive functioning, attentional control, and behavioral index scores fall in the extremely elevated range. (Exh. B-1, S-6)
Student’s Parents did not question the evaluations or request an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE). (Testimony of Student’s Mother)
On or about January 12, 2024, the PPT reviewed BOE’s evaluations, determined Student was eligible for special education and related services with a primary disability of OHI-ADD/ADHD, and developed an IEP for Student. (Exh. HO-2, B-1, S-7; Testimony of Student’s Mother)
The January 12, 2024 IEP provided special education and related services for executive functioning, speech language, occupational therapy, physical therapy, social skills, counseling, and paraeducator support for all academics, transitions, lunch, and specials; supplementary aids and services in the form of classroom accommodations (preferential seating fidgets, cuing, prompts, sensory strategies, movement breaks, flexible seating, token board, list sequential steps, give one paper/section at a time), and physical therapy and social worker consults. The IEP included executive functioning, communication, social/emotional, fine motor, and gross motor goals and objectives. Academic skills services were implemented in the general education classroom; communication in small group in the resource room; and fine motor, counseling, and gross motor in a related service setting. (Exh. B-1)
Student’s Parents did not agree that the proposed IEP was appropriate for Student. (Testimony of Student’s Mother)
In May 2024, Student’s Parents notified BOE that they planned to move out of state in autumn of 2024 and were applying to private schools. They requested a teacher and administrator referral from BOE for their application to an out of state private school. (Exh. B-26)
On or about June 13, 2024, BOE provided Student’s Parents with an IEP Progress Report for the 2023-24 school year. (Exh. HO-2)
Student’s Parents were not satisfied with Student’s program or progress. They did not share those concerns with BOE at the end of the school year. (Testimony of Student’s Mother)

2024-25 School Year – First Grade

During August 2024, Student’s Parents elected to withdraw Student from BOE’s Magnet School and placed him in a private Montessori School during the 2024-25 school year. (Exh. HO-2, B-2, B-26, S-10)
BOE was not surprised that Student was withdrawn from school since Student’s Parents previously indicated that they were moving out of state and enrolling Student in a private school. BOE was not aware that Student’s Parents were withdrawing him because they were dissatisfied with services at Magnet School. BOE reached out to Student’s Parents and eventually learned that they did not move out of state and that Student was enrolled at Montessori School within the district. BOE calendared to reach out again to get consent to conduct Student’s triennial evaluation in 2027. (Testimony of Magnet Assistant Principal)
At Montessori School, Student was in a cohort of 16 students with similar academic ability. (Testimony of Student’s Mother)
BOE did not contact Student’s Parents to schedule a PPT meeting during the 2024-25 school year. There was no communication between BOE and the family after Student was withdrawn from BOE’s school until October 2025. (Testimony of Student’s Father, Student’s Mother)
Student’s teacher at the Montessori School recommended a psychoeducational evaluation and social emotional programming for Student, who had behavioral and social issues. Student’s Parents retained Private Evaluator to conduct an evaluation to get a full profile of Student and enrolled him in a private small group social emotional program. (Testimony of Student’s Father, Student’s Mother)
In January and February 2025, Private Evaluator conducted a psychoeducational evaluation of Student in his office. Private Evaluator diagnosed Student with Autism Spectrum Disorder without accompanying intellectual or language impairment and ADHD and made school-based recommendations for Student. (Exh. S-17, B-15, B-16; Testimony of Private Evaluator)
Private Evaluator found that Student presents with inattention, impulsivity, and social difficulties at school; is bright, articulate, kind, and friendly; has difficulty connecting with peers, recognizing and interpreting facial expressions and emotions, maintaining appropriate personal space, and staying on task at school without individualized attention. (Exh. B-16, S-17)
Private Evaluator recommended a specialized educational setting that offers small student-to-teacher ratio; integrated occupational therapy; structured social opportunities; consistent behavioral interventions and strategies embedded across all activities and transitions; direct, evidence-based social pragmatic language instruction delivered by a speech and language pathologist (in group and individual settings); paraprofessional support in the classroom; extra time on tests and assignments; distraction-free environment for exams and critical assignments; preferential seating; periodic movement breaks; directions in written and oral format; materials presented in multimodal form; frequent teacher check-ins; regulatory tools and strategies; in-school facilitated peer social skills group such as lunch bunch; break down larger assignments; occupational therapy; push-in support in the classroom for spelling; regular weekly meetings with school counselor; and private cueing system. (Exh. B-16, S-17; Testimony of Private Evaluator)
When recommending that Student be placed in a special setting, he meant that Student would be taught by a special education teacher. (Testimony of Private Evaluator)
Private Evaluator did not observe Student in school as part of his evaluation. He has never visited Montessori School and has very little understanding of its structure or the number of students or teachers in the classroom or the experience or certifications of its staff. (Testimony of Private Evaluator)
Student’s Parents shared the evaluation report with Montessori School. (Testimony of Student’s Mother, Student’s Father)
Student showed progress since kindergarten yet still experienced challenges. (Exh. B-7; Testimony of Student’s Mother)
At the end of the school year, Montessori School staff determined that the school was not the best fit for Student due to his behavior. (Testimony of Student’s Father, Student’s Mother)
Student’s Parents began looking for a new school program for Student within a close radius of their home. For each private program they applied to, they provided a copy of Private Evaluation to be totally transparent and get a good fit for Student. (Testimony of Student’s Mother)

2025-26 School Year – Second Grade

BOE did not contact Student’s Parents to schedule a PPT meeting at the start of the 2025-26 school year. (Testimony of Student’s Father)
Student’s Parents enrolled Student in Private School, a state-approved private special education program, commencing with the beginning of the 2025-26 school year. (Exh. HO-2)
Student’s Parents provided Private School with a copy of Private Evaluator’s report as part of the application process. (Testimony of Student’s Mother, PS Head)
Private School conducts cognitive testing and prepares a Student Learning and Support Plan (Learning & Support Plan), which is their version of an IEP, for every student at the beginning of the school year. The Learning & Support Plan includes class size and teaching methodology and contains information similar to IEP goals and objectives. (Testimony of PS Head)
The Learning & Support Plan is not an IEP. (Testimony of PS Head, Assistant Director)
Student’s Learning & Support Plan indicates that he presents with strengths in fluid reasoning and affect recognition and weaknesses in attention, impulsivity and sensory processing; learns best in a small group, with his materials organized in front of him, with one-step directions, and with time to process information and repeat it back to the teacher. It notes that he tends to lose stamina, especially when the work becomes challenging. The plan embeds routines and structure, small group instruction, positive reinforcement, direct teacher instruction, modeling, refocusing and prompting, and repetition of new material in all academic subjects. (Exh. B-6, S-13)
At Private School, Student is in a class of three students, all of whom have some kind of learning struggle. He receives speech language, social emotional, and occupational therapy services. (Exh. B-6, S-13; Testimony of Student’s Mother, PS Head)
Student transitioned well to Private School, which is a restrictive setting. He is a joyful young man who is very eager to connect with others. His transition was not without bumps. Student has issues with getting in people’s personal space which is difficult for other students who have social pragmatic issues. (Testimony of PS Head)
At Private School, Student spends most of the day in the same class with one teacher and has very little pull-out services. Given the small class size, Student does not need one-to-one paraprofessional support. (Testimony of Student’s Mother, Student’s Father, PS Head)
Student’s teacher at Private School is certified as a long-term substitute teacher. She is not certified in special education. (Testimony of PS Head)
Student interacts with nondisabled children in sports and activities outside of school, which provides needed practice in social pragmatics. (Testimony of Student’s Mother, Student’s Father, PS Head)
When arriving at Private School, Student was more comfortable with adults. He is now comfortable engaging with other children. (Testimony of PS Head)
On or about October 1, 2025, Student’s Parents registered Student with BOE, provided notice of their intent to place Student at Private School for the 2025-26 school year; requested a PPT meeting; requested a copy of Student’s educational records; and requested reimbursement of the costs of Private School should the PPT deny their request for a PPT placement at that school. (Exh. HO-2, B-1, B-4, S-11, S-12; Testimony of Student’s Father, Student’s Mother)
Elementary School is Student’s neighborhood school. He continued to attend Private School after his parents registered him with BOE. (Testimony of Student’s Mother)
On October 20, 2025, Student’s Parents provided consent for BOE to communicate with and receive records from Private School and Montessori School. BOE indicated that the consent was important to allow the PPT to have up to date accurate information about Student. (Exh. B-8, B-14; Testimony of Student’s Father, Student’s Mother, Elementary Assistant Principal)
On or about October 21, 2025, BOE provided notice of an October 29, 2025 annual review PPT meeting. (Exh. HO-2, B-5, B-9, S-14)
The PPT meeting was scheduled as an annual review because Student had an active IEP at the time that he was withdrawn from school. The IEP was reactivated in the system and reviewed along with current data. (Exh. B-8; Testimony of Assistant Director, Elementary Assistant Principal, Specialized Assistant Principal)
A copy of Student’s Learning & Support Plan was provided to BOE prior to the PPT meeting. (Exh. HO-2, B-6)
BOE did not receive information from Private School until shortly before the PPT meeting. (Testimony of Assistant Director, Elementary Assistant Principal, Specialized Assistant Principal)
School-based members of the PPT met prior to the PPT meeting to discuss the information they had about Student and to prepare draft goals and objectives for review and discussion at the PPT meeting. They looked at Student’s gross motor, academic, and social emotional needs. They reviewed the Learning & Support Plan and Student’s previous IEP and evaluations. They primarily used the Learning & Support Plan to develop proposed goals and objectives. (Testimony of Assistant Director, Elementary Assistant Principal, Specialized Assistant Principal)
The school-based members of the PPT thought that Student may not need all the services identified in the Learning & Support Plan because he has very good reading and math skills. (Testimony of Assistant Director)
The Learning & Support Plan did not include physical therapy services. Student’s previous IEP did include physical therapy. (Testimony of Assistant Director)
BOE did not ask for Student’s Parent’s input into the draft goals and objectives prior to the PPT meeting. (Testimony of Student’s Mother, Specialized Assistant Principal)
Approximately two and one-half hours prior to the PPT meeting, BOE sent Student’s Parents draft goals and objectives for purposes of discussion at the PPT meeting. Student’s Parents did not have sufficient time to review it prior to the meeting. (Exh. S-15; Testimony of Student’s Father, Student’s Mother)
On October 29, 2025, BOE convened the annual review PPT meeting. (Exh. HO-2, B-10, S-16)
The PPT meeting started with Student’s Mother giving a recap of Student’s experience at Magnet School and why he needed a change and reviewing his goals and objectives and how he was doing at that point (six weeks into his tenure at Private School). Elementary Assistant Principal reviewed the draft goals and objectives and each staff member spoke about what they do and how they will support Student. (Testimony of Student’s Mother, Elementary Assistant Principal)
At the PPT meeting, Student’s Parents presented their concerns for enhancing Student’s education, described the program at Private School, and reported on Student’s progress at Private School. (Exh. HO-2)
School-based members of the PPT shared their training and the programs that they use that can be embedded in Student’s programming. (Exh. B-10, S-16; Testimony of Student’s Mother)
The PPT meeting included a discussion of reading methodology. (Testimony of Elementary Assistant Principal)
School-based members of the PPT initially thought that Student could be successful in the general education classroom based on his grade-appropriate academic skills and available supports. Student’s Parents expressed their concern that he requires small group instruction. The school-based members of the PPT proposed small group (five or fewer students) instruction in response to that concern. (Testimony of Elementary Assistant Principal, Magnet Assistant Principal)
Placement was not discussed at the beginning of the PPT meeting. It was discussed after Student’s Parents shared their input and the school staff reviewed proposed goals and objectives, training, and how they can support Student. (Testimony of Student’s Mother, Assistant Director, Elementary Assistant Principal)
The school-based members of the PPT believe that BOE can provide Student with an appropriately ambitious program, Private School is too restrictive for Student, Student can benefit from access to general education peers, and Elementary School is Student’s LRE. (Testimony of Elementary Assistant Principal, Assistant Director)
The October 29, 205 IEP includes two reading goals; one writing goal; one math goal; two communication goals; one social emotional goal; one executive functioning goal; four fine motor goals; and two gross motor goals. It provides reading in small group for 45 minutes five times per week; writing in small group for 15 minutes five times per week; math in small group for 30 minutes five times per week; small group social skills for 30 minutes twice per week; small group language communication group for 30 minutes twice a week; individual language/communication for 15 minutes once per week; individual physical therapy for 30 minutes once a week; physical therapy consult 30 minutes per month; occupational therapy for 30 minutes twice a week in individual/small group push-in or pull-out format; paraeducator support for all academics, transitions, lunch, and specials; supplementary aids and services in the form of classroom accommodations; special education transportation; and comprehensive evaluations. (Exh. B-12, S-16)
Student’s Mother believed that BOE cut and paste a lot from the Learning & Support Plan into the proposed IEP. The biggest change from the Learning & Support Plan to the proposed IEP was the hours of pull-out services. (Testimony of Student’s Mother)
Student’s Parents were concerned that BOE’s proposed program and placement would deny Student FAPE. Student’s Parents rejected the IEP for the reason it would deny Student FAPE. (Exh. HO-2)
Student’s Parents requested that the PPT consider placement at Private School for the 2025-26 school year. BOE denied Student’s Parents’ placement request and denied each of Student’s Parents’ requests to be reimbursed for the costs of Private School, transportation, and any related expenditures. (Exh. HO-2)
BOE requested Student’s Parents’ consent for a comprehensive evaluation. (Exh. HO-2, B-13)
Student’s Parents informed BOE that they had completed a private neuropsychological evaluation and provided an oral outline of their interpretation of the report to BOE during the PPT. BOE had no knowledge of a private neuropsychological report prior to the October 29, 2025 PPT meeting. The report was not provided to BOE prior to November 4, 2025. (Exh. HO-2)
Following the PPT meeting, BOE issued two Prior Written Notices (PWN) indicating that they developed an IEP, will implement the IEP on November 21, 2025, planned reevaluations, and denied Student’s Parents’ request for placement at Private School. (Exh. B-11)
On or about November 3, 2025, BOE sent Student’s Parents a consent form for BOE’s evaluations. (Exh. HO-2)
On or about November 4, 2025, Student’s Parents faxed a copy of Private Evaluator’s report to BOE, requested a revised consent form that would not duplicate Private Evaluator’s recent assessments, and requested a PPT meeting to review Private Evaluator’s report. (Exh. HO-2, B-15)
Assistant Director and Specialized Assistant Principal reviewed Private Evaluator’s report. They felt that it did not include all the information the PPT needed. Specialized Assistant Principal continued to recommend academic and fine motor evaluations and classroom observation as part of an academic or psychoeducational evaluation to get a more comprehensive picture of Student’s performance. (Testimony of Assistant Director, Specialized Assistant Principal)
On or about November 4, 2025, BOE, through counsel, advised Student’s Parents there was no need to revise the consent form after reviewing Private Evaluator’s report. (Exh. HO-2)
BOE felt there was no need to convene a PPT meeting to review the Private Evaluation until BOE’s evaluations were complete and the PPT could review all evaluations together to get a comprehensive picture of Student and be able to revise the IEP. (Exh. S-19, B-14; Testimony of Assistant Director, Specialized Assistant Principal)
On or about November 10, 2025, Student’s Parents, through counsel, sent an e-mail to BOE requesting amendments to the record of the October 29, 2025 PPT meeting because the record was incomplete or inaccurate. (Exh. HO-2, S-18, B-14)
BOE did not amend the record of meeting but did include Student’s Parents’ requested amendments in Student’s record. (Exh. S-18, B-14; Testimony of Assistant Director)
On December 1, 2025 BOE received Student’s Parents’ consent for BOE to conduct physical therapy and speech language evaluations, a developmental history, and an assistive technology consult. They did not consent to the recommended psychological, occupational, or academic evaluations. (Exh. S-21, S-22, S-23, B-13, B-17, B-18, B-19, B-20; Testimony of Student’s Mother, Student’s Father, Specialized Assistant Principal)
On December 9, 2025, Student’s Parents provided BOE consent to speak with Private Evaluator. (Exh. S-20; Testimony of Specialized Assistant Principal)
Private Evaluator did not observe Student at Private School. He is not familiar with the structure at Elementary School. (Testimony of Private Evaluator)
During December 2025 and January 2026, BOE completed various assessments, including a Physical Therapy report, a Developmental History, and a Speech and Language report. (Exh. HO-2, B-18, B-20, B-28)
BOE sought to schedule a PPT meeting in February or March 2026 to review the school evaluations and Private Evaluation. Student’s Parents indicated that they were not available to meet until after March 23, 2026 due to a scheduled trip out of the country, which was then postponed to April. (Exh. B-21; Testimony of Specialized Assistant Principal, Student’s Mother)
On February 22, 2026, Student’s Parents, through counsel, filed their Request for Hearing in this case. (Exh. HO-1)
A PPT meeting was scheduled for and convened on May 5, 2026. Student’s Parents and their attorney attended and participated in the meeting. The following BOE staff attended and participated: general education teacher, special education teacher, Elementary Assistant Principal, school psychologist, speech and language pathologist, occupational therapist, social worker, two physical therapists, Assistant Director, Specialized Assistant Principal, and BOE’s Attorney. Private Evaluator and Private School staff (administrator, social worker, and classroom teacher) attended and participated in the meeting. The PPT reviewed BOE’s evaluations, Private Evaluator’s evaluation report, and Student’s midyear progress report from Private School. (Exh. B-29, B-31, B-32; Testimony of Student’s Mother, Student’s Father, Assistant Director, Private Evaluator)
The PPT discussed Student’s eligibility category and agreed to change it from OHI-ADD/ADHD to Autism Spectrum Disorder based on Private Evaluator’s recommendation and report. (Exh. S-16, B-12, B-32, S-28; Testimony of Student’s Mother, Student’s Father, Elementary Assistant Principal, Private Evaluator)
The May 5, 2026 IEP includes two reading goals; one writing goal; one math goal; one communication goal; one social emotional goal; one executive functioning goal; and three fine motor goals. It provides for reading in small group for 45 minutes five times per week; writing in small group for 15 minutes five times per week; math in small group for 30 minutes five times per week; small group counseling for 30 minutes twice per week; small group language communication group for 30 minutes twice a week; occupational therapy for 30 minutes twice a week in individual/small group push-in or pull-out format; physical therapy consult 30 minutes per month; paraeducator support for all academics, transitions, lunch, and specials; supplementary aids and services in the form of classroom accommodations; and ESY services. (Exh. B-32)
The PPT completed the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) checklist. Student’s Parents asked for clarification of certain language and items on the checklist. Following completion of the checklist, the school-based members of the PPT agreed that Elementary School is Student’s LRE. Student’s Parents disagreed and requested placement at Private School. The PPT denied Student’s Parents request for placement at Private School. (Exh. S-28; Testimony of Student’s Mother, Elementary Assistant Principal)
Student’s Parents did not agree with the May 5, 2026 IEP. (Exh. S-27, B-31; Testimony of Student’s Mother)
Following the May 5, 2026 PPT meeting, BOE issued three PWN indicating that they determined Student is eligible for special education, developed an IEP, will implement the IEP on May 27, 2026, and denied Student’s Parents’ request for placement at Private School and tuition reimbursement. (Exh. B-30)
Student’s Parents, through counsel, sent an e-mail to BOE requesting amendments to the record of the May 5, 2026 PPT meeting. BOE did not amend the record of meeting but did include Student’s Parents’ requested amendments in Student’s record. (Exh. S-27; Testimony of Student’s Father, Student’s Mother, Assistant Director)
Student has been attending Private School during the 2025-26 school year. (Exh. HO-2)

Conclusions Of Law

A Hearing Officer appointed under 34 C.F.R. § 300.500 et seq. and Conn.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.¹⁰
The district must locate, identify, and evaluate all children with disabilities who are enrolled by their parents in private elementary and secondary schools located within its school district.¹¹
No parentally-placed private school child with a disability has an individual right to receive some or all of the special education and related services that the child would receive if enrolled in a public school.¹²
A Service Plan must be developed and implemented for each private school child with a disability.¹³
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.¹⁴
Parents of a child with a disability must be afforded an opportunity to participate in meetings with respect to the identification, evaluation, and educational placement of the child; and the provision of FAPE to the child.¹⁵ A “meeting” does not include preparatory activities that school staff engage in to develop a proposal that will be discussed at a later PPT meeting.¹⁶
That parents are unsuccessful in securing all their wishes for their child’s placement does not equate to lack of meaningful opportunity for parental participation.¹⁷
An IEP must include a statement of the child's present levels of academic achievement and functional performance, including how the child's disability affects the child's involvement and progress in the general education curriculum (i.e., the same curriculum as for nondisabled children); a description of how the child’s progress toward meeting the annual goals will be measured and when periodic reports on the progress the child is making toward meeting the annual goals will be provided; a statement of the special education and related services and supplementary aids and services, based on peer-reviewed research to the extent practicable, to be provided to the child, or on behalf of the child; a statement of the program modifications or supports for school personnel that will be provided for the child; an explanation of the extent, if any, to which the child will not participate with nondisabled children in the regular class; a statement of any individual appropriate accommodations that are necessary to measure the academic achievement and functional performance of the child on State and districtwide assessments; the projected date for the beginning of the services and modifications, and the anticipated frequency, location, and duration of those services and modifications.¹⁸
Related services means transportation and such developmental, corrective, and other supportive services as are required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education, and includes speech-language pathology and audiology services, interpreting services, psychological services, physical and occupational therapy, recreation, including therapeutic recreation, early identification and assessment of disabilities in children, counseling services, including rehabilitation counseling, orientation and mobility services, and medical services for diagnostic or evaluation purposes. Related services also include school health services and school nurse services, social work services in schools, and parent counseling and training.¹⁹
“There is nothing in the [IDEA] that requires an IEP to include specific instructional methodologies. Therefore, consistent with section 614(d)(1)(A)(ii)(I) of the [IDEA], we cannot interpret section 614 of the [IDEA] to require that all elements of a program provided to a child be included in an IEP. The Department’s longstanding position on including instructional methodologies in a child’s IEP is that it is an IEP Team’s decision. Therefore, if an IEP Team determines that specific instructional methods are necessary for the child to receive FAPE, the instructional methods may be addressed in the IEP.”²⁰
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.²¹
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.²²
To meet its substantive obligation under the IDEA, a school must offer an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.²³
The proper gauge for determining educational progress is “whether the educational program provided for a child is reasonably calculated to allow the child to receive ‘meaningful’ educational benefits.”²⁴
Factors to be considered in determining whether an IEP is reasonably calculated to provide a meaningful educational benefit is whether the proposed program is individualized on the basis of the student's assessment and performance and whether it is administered in the LRE.²⁵
The school district must ensure that children with disabilities are educated with children who are nondisabled to the maximum extent appropriate and that special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. ²⁶
The school district must ensure that a child’s placement is as close as possible to the child’s home and, unless the IEP requires some other arrangement, that the child is educated in the school they would attend if nondisabled.²⁷
A school district must ensure that a continuum of alternative placements is available to meet the needs of children with disabilities for special education and related services. This continuum must include alternative placements such as instruction in regular classes, special classes, special schools, home instruction, and instruction in hospitals and institutions and must make provision for supplementary services such as resource room or itinerant instruction to be provided in conjunction with regular class placement.²⁸
“This continuum of alternative placements is intended to ensure that a child with a disability is served in the setting where the child can be educated successfully in the LRE.”²⁹
An appropriate public education under IDEA is one that is “likely to produce progress, not regression.” The IDEA does not require that the school district provide the best available educational program, one that maximizes a student's educational potential, or the one deemed most desirable by parents.³⁰
The proposed program or placement must be reviewed in light of the information available to the PPT at the time the IEP was developed.³¹
School districts can engage in preparatory activities to develop a proposal or response to a parent proposal that will be discussed at a later meeting. Predetermination occurs when a school district decides on a student's IEP placement and services prior to the PPT meeting and without meaningful parent input.³²
“[A] difference exists between being ‘open-minded’ and being ‘blank-minded.’…While a school system must not finalize its placement decision before an IEP meeting, it can, and should, have given some thought to that placement.”³³
As part of a reevaluation, the PPT must review existing data, including evaluations and information provided by parents. The review may be conducted without a meeting.³⁴
If a parent shares with a school district an evaluation obtained at private expense, the results of the evaluation must be considered by the PPT in any decision made with respect to the provision of FAPE to the child.³⁵
BOE has the burden of proving the appropriateness of a student’s program or placement by a preponderance of the evidence.³⁶

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.

BOE argues that this is a straight forward case; Student was identified as eligible for special education in preschool; Student received services under an IEP during the 2023-24 school year; Student’s Parents withdrew him from BOE’s school and enrolled him in Montessori School for the 2024-25 school year; Student’s Parents did not put BOE on notice of unilateral placement; Student was parentally-placed in private schools which limited BOE’s obligation to Student to Child Find; Student’s Parents enrolled Student in Private School for the 2025-26 school year; Student continued to be parentally-placed until they provided notice of unilateral placement on October 1, 2025; BOE had no FAPE obligation toward Student until such notice; BOE reviewed prior evaluations, IEPs, records from Private School, and progress data; BOE promptly convened a PPT meeting; the PPT recommended goals and objectives that closely mirrored those established by Private School; the PPT recommended services that would allow Student to make progress; the PPT considered Student’s Parent’s request for Student to be placed at Private School through his IEP and determined that it was overly restrictive; Student’s Parents fully participated in the PPT meeting; the IEP was reasonably calculated to allow Student to receive educational benefit; Student’s Parents did not provide BOE their private evaluation until one week after the PPT meeting; BOE issued PWN; Student’s Parents consented to some, but not all, the evaluation that the PPT recommended; BOE completed the evaluations within 40 school days of consent; Student’s Parents filed the Request for Hearing prior to the PPT meeting to review the evaluations; and BOE offered Student FAPE for the 2025-26 school year.

Student’s Parents argue that they had concerns about Student’s program when he was enrolled in BOE’s school; Student’s report card from the 2023-24 school year shows inconsistent progress; they explored alternatives and placed Student in a private program; BOE did not engage in Child Find with respect to Student for the 2025-26 school year; Student’s Parents outlined their concerns and put BOE on notice of unilateral placement on October 1, 2025; BOE did not provide draft IEP goals and objectives until two hours before the PPT meeting, which did not give them an opportunity to review it prior to the meeting; Student’s Parents attended the October 29, 2025 PPT meeting and presented their concerns and Student’s program and progress at Private School; the proposed IEP is not consistent with Student’s program at Private School; Student was out of BOE’s schools for two years so they did not have up to date information about Student; Student’s Parents notified BOE that they had a private psychoeducational evaluation done and provided it to BOE on November 4, 2025; Student’s Parents requested another PPT meeting to review Private Evaluation so that the IEP could be based on the most up to date information and not BOE’s 2023 evaluations; BOE refused to convene another PPT meeting until they completed their evaluations; Student’s Parents did not consent to BOE’s proposed evaluations that were duplicative of current evaluations; Student’s Parents cooperated with all BOE requests but there was a lack of reciprocity in cooperation; BOE predetermined Student’s placement at Elementary School; Student’s Parents had no input on the proposed goals and objectives; their request for placement at Private School and reimbursement for such placement was denied; Student’s Parents requested amendment of the record of the PPT meeting; BOE did not amend the record; the IEP does not provide Student with FAPE; the IEP has a significant percent of pull-out services and does not identify methodology; and Private School provides Student with an appropriate education.

Parent Participation

Issue 1(e) asks whether BOE failed to provide Student with FAPE during the 2025-26 school year by failing to allow Student’s Parents meaningful participation in Student’s education decisions. The Request for Hearing alleges that Student’s Parents “advised the PPT that they had insufficient time to review the 12-page draft goals and objectives since it was sent to them two hours prior to the [October 29, 2025] PPT meeting” and that “consequently, they were unable to provide any meaningful input into the development of that document.”

The Request for Hearing further states that Student’s Parents “presented their concerns for enhancing Student’s education;” requested the PPT to review their concerns that were contained in their counsel’s October 1, 2025 letter; described the Private School program and Student’s progress there; reviewed Student’s struggles at BOE’s Magnet School; described Student’s need for more structure and support than provided at Magnet School; and expressed their concerns with the larger class size at Elementary School compared to Private School’s smaller class size where Student did not require paraprofessional support or pull-out services. Student’s Parents argue that the PPT did not consider their input.

Student’s Parents argue that they were not invited to participate in BOE’s preparatory meeting prior to the PPT meeting. Under the IDEA, parents have the right to participate in meetings with respect to the identification, evaluation, and educational placement and provision of FAPE to their child. The IDEA expressly states that a “meeting” does not include preparatory activities that school staff engage in to develop a proposal that will be discussed at a later PPT meeting. Student’s Parents were not denied meaningful participation by not being included in BOE’s preparatory meeting or having input into the draft goals and objectives to be discussed at the PPT meeting.

Student’s Parents received notice of, attended, and participated in the October 29, 2025 and May 5, 2026 PPT meetings with counsel. Student’s Attorney’s requests to amend the records of meeting identify numerous ways in which Student’s Parents offered input and expressed their concerns and indicates that the school-based members of the PPT described the proposed goals and objectives, their recommendations, pull-out services, and the need for updated evaluations.

Student’s Parents’ concerns are noted in the record of the PPT meetings, the IEPs, and the request for amendments which are included in Student’s record. The school-based members of the PPT provided their recommendations based on input from Student’s Parents, information received from Private School and Private Evaluator, the Learning & Support Plan, Private Evaluation, Student’s 2023-24 evaluations and IEP, the 2025-26 evaluations, and Student’s midyear progress report from Private School. That the PPT did not agree with and implement all of Student’s Parents’ requests does not mean that their input was not considered or that they did not have an opportunity to participate meaningfully.

Student’s Parents had a meaningful opportunity to participate by attending – with counsel - and presenting input at the PPT meetings and providing BOE access to Private Evaluation, Student’s Learning & Support Plan, and progress reports, which the PPT reviewed and considered. They had an opportunity to review and discuss the proposed goals and objectives and have their input considered.

Parents must be afforded an opportunity to meaningfully participate in developing the IEP. That right does not provide parents veto power or the right to dictate the terms of an IEP. There is credible evidence in the record that Student’s Parents had an opportunity to, and did, participate actively in the PPT meeting and that the PPT considered Student’s Parents’ input.

Predetermination

Issue 1(c) asks whether BOE failed to provide Student with FAPE during the 2025-26 school year by predetermining Student’s educational program.

The Request for Hearing argues that BOE engaged in predetermination when it advised Student’s Parents of the Elementary School placement decision at the commencement of the October 29, 2025 PPT meeting, prior to developing an agreed upon IEP, prior to considering Student’s Parents’ input, and prior to considering Student’s unique needs as identified in the Learning & Support Plan and Private Evaluation.³⁷

School districts can engage in preparatory activities to develop a proposal that will be discussed at a later PPT meeting. Predetermination occurs when a district makes educational decisions prior to a PPT meeting and is unwilling to consider other options, thus depriving parents their right to fully participate as an equal member of the PPT. The difference between preparation and predetermination is BOE’s willingness to be open-minded and to consider parent input and concerns. There are multiple instances of BOE being open-minded and making changes to their recommendations based on input from Student’s Parents and the Private Evaluation.

There is credible evidence that the school-based members of the PPT did not come into the PPT meeting with a close-minded decision to recommend placement at Elementary School. Elementary Assistant Principal testified that there was a discussion at the beginning of the October 29, 2025 meeting as to which school was Student’s neighborhood school since there was confusion around Student’s registration and whether he would be attending. Student’s Mother credibly testified that she believes placement at Elementary School was recommended at the end of the PPT meeting. This testimony is consistent with Elementary Assistant Principal’s testimony that placement was proposed after hearing Student’s Parents’ input and reviewing proposed goals and objectives.

School-based members of the PPT initially thought that Student could be successful in the general education classroom based on his grade-appropriate academic skills and available supports. At the October 29, 2025 PPT meeting Student’s Parents expressed their concern that he requires small group instruction. The school-based members of the PPT proposed small group instruction in response to that concern.

At the May 5, 2026 PPT meeting, after discussion and based on Private Evaluator’s recommendation, the PPT agreed to change Student’s eligibility classification.

Student’s Parents were given the opportunity to, and did, participate in the PPT meeting to plan for and develop Student’s IEP; school-based members of the PPT listened to and considered their opinions and requests; BOE modified their proposal based on such input; and the school-based members of the PPT believe that the resulting IEP will provide Student FAPE in the LRE. There is credible evidence in the record that BOE did not predetermine Student’s educational program.

Private Evaluation

Issue 1(b) asks whether BOE failed to provide Student with FAPE during the 2025-26 school year by failing to consider private evaluations. The Request for Hearing states that BOE should have convened a PPT meeting immediately after Student’s Parents provided it with the Private Evaluation and alleges that the failure to do so denied Student FAPE. (Exh. HO-1)

Student’s Parents testified that the 2025-26 IEP should be based on the most current data, which they considered to be Private Evaluation. Yet, they did not notify BOE of its existence until the end of the October 29, 2025 PPT meeting at which the PPT considered and proposed an IEP for Student for the 2025-26 school year.³⁸

Student’s Parents provided BOE with the Private Evaluation on November 4, 2025. BOE determined that the evaluation did not provide all the needed information that would be garnered from BOE’s proposed evaluations, such as quantitative academic information.³⁹ In December 2025, Student’s Parents consented to some but not all the proposed evaluations. BOE agreed to review the Private Evaluation in conjunction with the evaluations to which Student’s Parents consented.

BOE completed the evaluations in December 2025 and January 2026. The PPT reviewed Private Evaluation as part of their reevaluation. They sought to schedule a PPT meeting in February or March 2026 to review the evaluations, including Private Evaluation. Student’s Parents indicated that they were not available to meet for a period in March and April 2026 due to travel plans. The parties eventually agreed upon May 5, 2026 for the meeting, at which the PPT considered both Private Evaluation and the school’s evaluations in making decisions with respect to the provision of FAPE.

BOE’s decision to consider Private Evaluation in conjunction with the school evaluations so that they had comprehensive current information across all suspected areas of disability when making decisions about the provision of FAPE to Student was reasonable. The delay in scheduling was due to Student’s Parents’ availability, not BOE’s actions.

BOE did not deny Student FAPE by considering the Private Evaluation holistically with the school-based evaluations instead of separately and in isolation.

Appropriateness of IEP

Issue 1(a) asks whether BOE failed to provide Student with FAPE during the 2025-26 school year by failing to provide Student an appropriately ambitious IEP that is reasonably calculated to allow Student to make meaningful progress.

Child Find

Student argues that BOE failed its Child Find obligation from the beginning of the 2025-26 school year to October 1, 2025. The Issues certified for hearing do not expressly identify Child Find as an issue. As both parties presented evidence and argument on the issue, it is considered under the broader question of whether BOE failed to provide Student FAPE during the 2025-26 school year by failing to provide Student an appropriate IEP.

During kindergarten (2023-24 school year) BOE identified Student as a child with a disability eligible for special education and related services and developed an IEP for him. Midway through the duration of the IEP, Student’s Parents told BOE that they were moving out of state and enrolling Student in private school. They did not file a due process request or state complaint or otherwise indicate they were withdrawing Student due to concerns about the provision of FAPE or that the placement was unilateral with a request for reimbursement. Student was parentally-placed effective with the start of the 2024-25 school year and remained so until Student’s Parents put BOE on notice of unilateral placement on October 1, 2025. Upon notice that Student was withdrawn from BOE’s schools and parentally-placed in private school, BOE calendared to reach out to Student’s Parents to conduct his triennial evaluation, which at that time, was due in January 2027.

A parentally-placed child does not have an individual entitlement to any or all services that he would receive if enrolled in a public school. During the period of Student’s enrollment in Private School, prior to October 1, 2025, BOE was not obligated to convene a PPT meeting or develop an IEP for Student, whose parents made clear their intention of keeping Student enrolled in Private School.

When BOE was put on notice of unilateral placement on October 1, 2025, they timely scheduled, prepared for, and convened a PPT meeting and developed an IEP for Student for the 2025-26 school year. BOE did not violate its Child Find obligation to Student during the 2025-26 school year.

October 29, 2025 IEP

As indicated in the Request for Hearing and their November 10, 2025 request to amend the record, Student’s Parents had the following concerns about the IEP: it was developed using 2023-24 school year data without parental input and without consideration of data from Private School; it was devoid of any references to educational methodology; pull-out services for academic instruction and related services are more than ten hours per week; large class sizes with paraprofessional support as compared to small class size without such support at Private School; and less structure, support, and services than receiving at Private School.

There is credible evidence in the record that the PPT was developed with parental input and consideration of data from Private School. The PPT reviewed the most current information available to it⁴⁰ in developing the IEP: Student’s 2023-24 evaluations and IEP, the Learning & Support Plan from Private School,⁴¹ and Student’s Parents’ input in the form of their attorney’s October 1, 2025 letter and their input at the PPT meeting.

The IDEA does not require an IEP to include specific instructional methodologies. A PPT may determine that a specific instructional method is necessary for the child to receive FAPE and include it in the IEP.

The Learning & Support Plan identifies methodologies that are used in class for all students and does not indicate that the stated methodologies are individualized for Student based on his needs or that he requires specific methodologies to receive FAPE. Private School had Private Evaluation available to it when developing the Learning & Support Plan. Private Evaluator testified that he did not have any specific methodologies in mind when making recommendations for Student’s program. Neither the Learning & Support Plan nor Student’s 2023-24 evaluations indicate that specific methodologies are required for Student to receive FAPE and make appropriate progress.

Student’s Mother testified that the school-based members of the PPT discussed their training and various programs and methodologies that they use that can be embedded in Student’s programming. Such conversations support parents’ understanding of the program and their opportunity for meaningful participation.

Student’s Parents expressed concern that pull-out services in the IEP are more than those provided at Private School. Pull-out services are generally understood to be instructional or related services sessions where a student is removed from the general education classroom to work in a separate setting. At Private School, all of Student’s time is outside of a general education classroom and in an environment where he has no school time with nondisabled children.

The Request for Hearing and requests to amend the records of the PPT meetings express concern over the number of hours Student is removed from the general education classroom and do not indicate concerns with the number of transitions provided for in the IEP. In their testimony, Student’s Parents’ concern was expressed not as a concern that he will miss time with nondisabled children but that he will experience more transitions in his school day.⁴²

In discussing diagnostic implications and the impact of an Autism profile, Private Evaluation notes that Student “may find it difficult to adjust to new routines or unexpected changes to plans at times. Therefore, transitions or the unexpected disruptions inherent in daily life can lead to intense emotional reactions.” When questioned about that statement in his report, Private Evaluator testified “These are things that come along with difficulties in cognitive or behavioral rigidity.” He went on to testify that “I was noting the things that often come along with the -- the rigidity. I'm not saying specifically that he had those particular characteristics.”

Private Evaluator did not recommend that transitions be limited or avoided. He did recommend that Student have comprehensive full-day support and consistent behavioral interventions and strategies embedded across all activities and transitions.

The Learning & Support Plan indicates that Student has several transitions at Private School: speech language therapy three times per week; occupational therapy once per week; social emotional learning class twice a week; physical education five times per week; school-wide morning meeting; visits to the STEM room and outside garden; art/music class; and recess. Neither the Learning & Support Plan or Student’s Private School progress report indicate difficulties with transitions or the need to limit such.

Certain of the pull-out services identified in the IEP are similar to those in the Learning & Support Plan: speech language therapy three times per week; social skills twice per week; and occupational therapy twice per week. The October 29, 2025 IEP also includes direct physical therapy and pull-out for small group reading, writing, and math which was included in response to Student’s Parents request for small group.⁴³ Each of the pull-out services identified in the IEP are individualized based on information about Student’s assessments and performance that was available to the PPT at the time.

Because Student is making progress in a small environment where he is not exposed to nondisabled children does not mean that he cannot be successful in another environment. Private Evaluator testified that he recommended a specialized educational setting (meaning one taught by a special education teacher) offering small teacher-to-student ratio to ensure individualized support and instruction. He also recommended paraprofessional support (that did not need to be one-to-one) to ensure that Student receive individual attention if he was not in a small setting.

The PPT must identify Student’s needs and determine the least restrictive environment in which those needs can be met. The October 29, 2025 IEP includes the same goals and objectives⁴⁴ and many of the same related services and supplementary aids and services identified in Private School’s Learning & Support Plan and a one-to-one paraprofessional to support Student. BOE incorporates small group instruction within general education classrooms in addition to the small group instruction proposed to occur in the resource room. Student’s Mother does not want Student to have paraprofessional support yet testified that he needs constant one-on-one support to function properly. Student’s Mother testified that Student’s behaviors and social issues were not happening at Private School because his teacher⁴⁵ was hands-on with him throughout the school day. The IEP calls for one-on-one paraeducator support for all academics, transitions, lunch, and specials and small group reading, writing, and mathematics with a special education teacher. This support is consistent with Private Evaluator’s recommendation for full-day support and consistent behavioral interventions and strategies embedded across all activities and transitions.

Under the IDEA’s LRE requirement, the PPT must ensure that Student is educated with nondisabled children to the maximum extent appropriate and that removal from the regular educational environment occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. The PPT must ensure that a child’s placement is as close as possible to his home and he is educated in the school he would attend if nondisabled unless the IEP requires otherwise to provide FAPE.

PS Head testified that Student “needs practice all the time with social pragmatics” and that it can be difficult to teach social pragmatics in a small school where other children also have their own issues. Private School uses adults, not peers, to model social behavior. Private Evaluator testified that it would be beneficial for Student to attend school with nondisabled peers. BOE staff credibly testified that Student will be able to practice and learn social pragmatic skills in the general education classroom with nondisabled peers with the support of the one-to-one paraprofessional and in small group skills class.

Elementary School is Student’s neighborhood school. Student has academic strengths that support his opportunity for success in the general education classroom with a one-to-one paraprofessional to support his non-academic needs and allow him to make meaningful progress. Based on the information available to the PPT at the time, the October 29, 2025 IEP was appropriately ambitious and reasonably calculated to allow Student to make meaningful progress.

BOE made reasonable efforts to accommodate Student in a regular classroom and be included in school programs with nondisabled children and with appropriate supplementary aids and services to the maximum extent appropriate. There is no allegation or evidence that Student’s inclusion in the general education classroom will have any negative effects on the provision of education to other students in the classroom.

May 5, 2026 IEP⁴⁶

The PPT reviewed and considered BOE’s 2025-26 evaluations for which Student’s Parents consented, Private Evaluator’s evaluation report, Student’s midyear progress report from Private School, and Student’s Parents’ input. With that available information, the IEP was modified in several ways: changed eligibility category; updated present levels of performance to match the results of his assessments and progress reports; modified goals and objectives;⁴⁷ removed direct physical therapy which Student’s Parents agreed he no longer needs; added ESY eligibility; provided supports and accommodations for statewide assessments; removed individual speech language therapy; and added more supplementary aids and services.

Private Evaluator and Student’s Parents testified that, of the two programs, Private School is better for Student than Elementary School. The standard for evaluating the proposed IEP is not to determine whether one program is better or more preferred by Student’s Parents. The issue is whether the proposed IEP is appropriate – if it is individualized based on Student's assessments and performance, reasonably calculated to enable Student to receive a meaningful educational benefit, and administered in the LRE.

BOE provided cogent and responsive explanations for their decisions in developing the May 5, 2026 IEP which is reasonably calculated to enable Student to make meaningful progress in light of his circumstances.

Continuum of Alternative Placements

Issue 1(d) asks whether BOE failed to provide Student with FAPE during the 2025-26 school year by failing to offer Student a continuum of alternative placements.

The Request for Hearing states that BOE should have maintained and offered Student a continuum of alternate placements once it was conclusively established that the education program and placement at Elementary School would deny Student FAPE.

The continuum of alternative placements is a scale of possible placements to ensure that a student is educated successfully in the LRE. It is not a remedy for a FAPE violation. The continuum starts with full integration in general education with no special education or related services and moves to increasingly more restrictive settings, including residential placement and homebound instruction.

Student’s Parents raised concern about small group settings, use of paraeducator support, and pull-out services and requested private placement. The PPT considered these concerns and options.

Both the October 29, 2025 and May 5, 2026 IEPs offer Student a continuum of alternative placements, including time in the general education classroom; paraeducator support for all academics, transitions, lunch, and specials; small group instruction; and pull-out services for speech language, occupational, and physical therapy. There is credible uncontroverted evidence in the record that BOE considered and offered Student a continuum of alternative placements with the goal of successfully educating him in the LRE.

Issues Two, Three, Four

Because the answer to Issue One is that BOE did not fail to provide Student FAPE during the 2025-26 school year, these remaining issues are moot.

Final Decision And Order

The Board of Education did not fail to provide Student with a free appropriate public education during the 2025-26 school year.

¹ In order to comply with the confidentiality requirements of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g (“FERPA”) and related regulations at 34 C.F.R. § 99, this decision uses “Student,” “Parents,” and titles of certain school staff members and witnesses in place of names and other personally-identifiable information. ↩︎

² All dates are 2026 unless otherwise indicated. ↩︎

³ Hearing Officer exhibits are identified as HO-#, BOE exhibits as B-#, and Student exhibits as S-#. See Appendix for list of exhibits. ↩︎

⁴ 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. ↩︎

⁵ 29 USC § 794. ↩︎

⁶ Time spent on opening statements, objections, breaks or addressing technology challenges are not included in these hours. ↩︎

⁷ BOE’s Assistant Director of Special Education (Assistant Director) was called to testify in BOE’s case in chief and then recalled again in Student’s case in chief and during BOE’s rebuttal. ↩︎

⁸ BOE’s Elementary School Assistant Principal was called to testify in BOE’s case in chief and then recalled again in Student’s case in chief. ↩︎

⁹ C.G.S. §§ 4-176e to 4-178 inclusive, 4-181a and 4-186. ↩︎

¹⁰ C.G.S. § 10-76h(d)(1). ↩︎

¹¹ 34 C.F.R. § 300.131. ↩︎

¹² 34 C.F.R. § 300.137. ↩︎

¹³ 34 C.F.R. § 300.132. ↩︎

¹⁴ Conn.Regs. § 10-76a-1(14). ↩︎

¹⁵ 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b); 34 C.F.R. § 300.501(b)-(c); Conn.Regs. § 10-76d-12(a). ↩︎

¹⁶ 34 C.F.R. § 300.501(b)-(3). ↩︎

¹⁷ See, J.C. ex rel. C. v. New Fairfield Bd. of Educ., Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-1591 (VLB), 2011 WL 1322563, (Bryant, J.) (D. Conn. March 31, 2011). ↩︎

¹⁸ 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320. ↩︎

¹⁹ 20 U.S.C. § 1401(26); 34 C.F.R. § 300.34(a). ↩︎

²⁰ Statement of Special Education and Related Services, 71 Fed. Reg. 46665 (Aug. 14, 2006) (codified at 34 C.F.R. 300.320) ↩︎

²¹ Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982); Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 1998). ↩︎

²² 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E); 34 C.F.R. § 300.513(a); Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 127 S. Ct. 1994, 2001 (2007). ↩︎

²³ Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, 580 U.S. 386, 137 S.Ct. 988 (2017). ↩︎

²⁴ Mrs. B. v. Milford Board of Education, 103 F.3d 1114, 1120 (2d Cir. 1997). ↩︎

²⁵ 20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(5)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.114(a); A.S. v. Bd. of Educ. of West Hartford, 35 IDELR 179 (D. Conn. 2001), aff’d, 47 Fed. Appx. 615 (2d Cir. 2002); M.C. ex rel. Mrs. C. v. Voluntown Bd. of Educ., 122 F.Supp.2d 289, 292 n.6 (D.Conn. 2000). ↩︎

²⁶ 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.114 – 300.117; Conn.Regs. § 10-76d-17. ↩︎

²⁷ 34 C.F.R. § 300.116. ↩︎

²⁸ 34 C.F.R. § 300.115. ↩︎

²⁹ Continuum of Alternative Placements, 71 Fed. Reg. 46587 (Aug. 14, 2006) (codified at 34 C.F.R. 300.115) ↩︎

³⁰ Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 130 (2d Cir. 1998); Mrs. B. v. Milford Bd. of Educ., 103 F.3d 1114, 1121 (2d Cir. 1997). ↩︎

³¹ B. L. v. New Britain Bd. of Educ., 394 F. Supp. 2d 522, 537 (D. Conn. 2005). ↩︎

³² 34 C.F.R. § 300.501(b); T.P. v. Mamaroneck Union Free Sch. Dist., 51 IDELR 176 (2d Cir. 2009). ↩︎

³³ J.C. ex rel. C. v. New Fairfield Bd. of Educ., Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-1591 (VLB), 2011 WL 1322563, (Bryant, J.) (D. Conn. March 31, 2011) citing A.E. Ex Rel. E. v. Westport Bd. of Educ., 463 F. Supp. 2d 208, 217 (D. Conn. 2006). ↩︎

³⁴ 34 C.F.R. § 300.305(a)-(b). ↩︎

³⁵ 34 C.F.R. § 300.502(c)(1). ↩︎

³⁶ Conn.Regs. § 10-76h-14. ↩︎

³⁷ The allegations in the Request for Hearing relate to the October 29, 2025 PPT meeting since it was filed prior to the May 5, 2026 PPT meeting. Student’s Parents did not inform BOE of the existence of the Private Evaluation prior to the end of the October 29, 2025 PPT meeting. Any allegation that BOE failed to consider the Private Evaluation at the October 29, 2025 PPT meeting is not supported by the stipulated evidence. ↩︎

³⁸ In their testimony, Student’s Parents provided no cogent explanation for why they did not notify BOE of the existence of the Private Evaluation prior to the end of the October 29, 2025 PPT meeting despite their testimony that they wanted educational decisions to be made based on current data and wanted collaboration with BOE. ↩︎

³⁹ BOE noted that Private Evaluation was completed when Student was in a different school (Montessori) than he is currently in (Private School). Montessori School did not invite Student to return the following year because they deemed it to not be a good fit for him. Private Evaluator did not observe Student in any school environment. ↩︎

⁴⁰ As noted above, the PPT did not have the benefit of reviewing the Private Evaluation in developing the October 29, 2025 IEP. Student’s Parents did not notify BOE of its existence until the end of the PPT meeting and then provided it to them the following week. ↩︎

⁴¹ The parties’ stipulation of facts state that BOE had a copy of the Learning & Support Plan prior to the PPT meeting. Student’s Mother testified that the IEP goals and objectives looked like they were cut and pasted into the IEP from the Learning & Support Plan. ↩︎

⁴² Student’s Parents testified that Student has time with nondisabled children in extra-curricular activities unrelated to school to balance the lack of such exposure in school. ↩︎

⁴³ Student’s Mother expressed concern about what classroom work Student will be missing during pull-out sessions. Most of the pull-out hours in the October 29, 2025 and May 5, 2026 IEPs are for small group academic services (90 minutes per day). The remaining pull-out hours are related services that total 225 minutes per week in the October 29, 2025 IEP and 180 minutes per week in the May 5, 2026 IEP. ↩︎

⁴⁴ The Request for Hearing alleges that Student’s Parents were concerned that the proposed IEP goals and objectives were “too vague and unclear.” Student’s Parents testified that the Learning & Support Plan is appropriate. BOE incorporated Student’s goals and objectives from the Learning & Support Plan into the IEP. ↩︎

⁴⁵ Student’s teacher at Private School is certified as a long-term substitute teacher, not a special education teacher, which is not consistent with Private Evaluator’s recommendation. ↩︎

⁴⁶ The Request for Hearing was filed more than two months prior to the May 5, 2026 PPT meeting and therefore includes no allegations regarding the resulting IEP. Both parties introduced evidence and argument about that IEP in relation to Issue One and the offer of FAPE to Student during the 2025-26 school year so it is addressed herein. ↩︎

⁴⁷ PS Head testified that he agrees with the goals and objectives in the May 5, 2026 IEP. ↩︎

Final Decision and Order Case #26-0456

Final Decision And Order

Procedural Posture

Statement Of Jurisdiction

Findings Of Relevant Fact

Qualifications of Witnesses

Background

2022-23 School Year - Preschool

2023-24 School Year - Kindergarten

2024-25 School Year – First Grade

2025-26 School Year – Second Grade

Conclusions Of Law

Discussion

Parent Participation

Predetermination

Private Evaluation

Appropriateness of IEP

Child Find

October 29, 2025 IEP

May 5, 2026 IEP46

Continuum of Alternative Placements

Issues Two, Three, Four

Final Decision And Order

May 5, 2026 IEP⁴⁶