Final Decision and Order Case #26-0510

Vernon Board of Education,

Petitioner,
v.

Parent, on behalf of Student,

Respondent.

Case: 26-0510

Findings of Fact and Decision

Introduction

The matter at issue arises from a dispute between the Vernon Board of Education (the "Board" or "District") and [REDACTED], the parent of [REDACTED], (the “parent”). . The Student is a six-year-old student enrolled in the Vernon Public Schools.

This dispute concerns the appropriateness of the District's triennial evaluation of the student and the parent's entitlement to an Independent Educational Evaluation ("IEE") at public expense. There was a Planning and Placement Team ("PPT") meeting held on March 18, 2026, at which the evaluation results were presented and discussed. The parent disagreed with the Board's evaluation and requested an IEE at public expense on or about March 19, 2026, which was the day immediately following the PPT meeting. Rather than agreeing to fund the IEE, the Board elected to defend the appropriateness of its evaluation by initiating a due process proceeding. The Board filed a due process complaint on March 20, 2026, one day after the parent's IEE request, asserting that its evaluation of the student was appropriate and that the parent was therefore not entitled to an IEE at public expense.

The case was assigned Case No. 26-0510 and was heard before me on May 1, 2026, at the Vernon Board of Education offices located at 30 Park Street, Vernon, Connecticut. The Board was represented by [REDACTED], while the parent, appeared on behalf of her son.

Prior to the hearing, I issued a pre-hearing order that established disclosure deadlines for witnesses and exhibits. The parent failed to timely disclose witnesses or exhibits in accordance with that pre-hearing order. As a result, the only evidence admitted at the hearing consisted of Board Exhibits 1 through 8, which were admitted over objections. Both parties waived opening statements. The Board called five witnesses in its case-in-chief: [REDACTED] (special education teacher and case manager), [REDACTED] (occupational therapist), [REDACTED] (speech-language pathologist), [REDACTED] (school psychologist), and [REDACTED] (Director of Pupil Services). The parent did not call any witnesses and declined to testify on her own behalf, despite the hearing officer's indication that she could properly do so as a party (even though she had not formally disclosed herself as a witness). Following the closing of testimony, both parties delivered oral closing arguments.

Findings of Fact

The Student is approximately six years old. (Tr. 153). He was first diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder in 2021. He subsequently received a second autism diagnosis from an additional provider. (Tr. 39). From an early age, the Student required early intervention services. (Tr. 170). He received approximately two years of Applied Behavioral Analysis prior to his enrollment in a school program. (Tr. 41). The Student began receiving special education services in May of 2024, initially at fifteen minutes of specially designed instruction per day. (Tr. 31). In January 2025, his services were increased to thirty minutes per day. These services continued as the Student transitioned into kindergarten. (Tr. 31). In June, 2025, the District received letters from the Student’s pediatrician confirming his autism spectrum disorder diagnosis. (Tr. 156-157). In October 2025, the parent emailed [REDACTED] a summary from the Student’s ophthalmologist documenting his visual impairment diagnosis. (Tr. 159-160).

A triennial reevaluation became due during the 2025-2026 school year. (Tr. 147–148). In December, 2025, [REDACTED], a special education teacher with thirteen years of experience, conducted the Student’s educational assessment. [REDACTED] selected and administered five measures: the Test of Early Reading Ability, Fourth Edition (TERA-4); the Test of Early Written Language, Third Edition (TEWL-3); the Test of Early Mathematics Ability, Third Edition (TEMA-3); the DIBELS mCLASS reading screener; and a record review and curriculum-based assessment review.

On the TERA-4, the Student received a General Reading Index of 93, placing him within the average range for his age. On the TEWL-3, the Student received an overall writing standard score of 87, which fell in the below-average range. The Student was able to write his name but did not attempt to write any other words, and experienced significant difficulty with the physical act of letter formation. On the TEMA-3, the Student received a standard score of ninety, placing him in the average range. On the DIBELS mCLASS screener, the Student named forty letters per minute at the midyear assessment, above the grade-level expectation. (Exh. 1).

In January, 2026, [REDACTED], a speech-language pathologist, co-administered a second assessment using the Battelle Developmental Inventory Evaluation (“DEI”). In the adaptive domain, the Student demonstrated a mild developmental delay driven largely by fine and gross motor difficulties. In the social-emotional domain, he received a standard score of 100, placing him in the average range. In the motor domain, he received a standard score of 72, representing a mild developmental delay. In the cognitive portion, the Student received a standard score of ninety, in the average range. The evaluation supported continued eligibility under the developmental delay category. (Exh. 2).

Also in January, 2026, [REDACTED], an occupational therapist, conducted an occupational therapy evaluation of the Student. She administered the Tools to Grow fine motor screening tool, which showed that the Student had issues with using school tools and that his pencil control and letter formation were significant areas of difficulty. Based on these findings, the team agreed at the March 2026 PPT meeting to provide direct occupational therapy services. (Exh. 3).

On February 25, 2026, [REDACTED] conducted a speech-language evaluation of the Student. She administered the Arizona Articulation Phonology Scale, Fourth Edition (Arizona-4); the Stuttering Severity Instrument, Fourth Edition (SSI-4); the Children's Communication Checklist, Second Edition (CCC-2); the Receptive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test, Fourth Edition (ROWPVT-4); the Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test (EOWPVT); and the Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language, Second Edition (CASL-2).

On the Arizona-4, the Student’s speech-sound production scores fell within normal limits, indicating he did not qualify for direct speech services based on articulation. On the SSI-4, the Student demonstrated mild-severity stuttering behaviors. (Exh. 4). A teacher had raised concerns about possible stuttering, which prompted [REDACTED] to include this assessment. (Tr. 71). On the CCC-2, completed only by the Student’s classroom teacher, the Student received a General Communication Composite (GCC) score of 82, below the average range. The Social Interaction Deviance Index (SIDI) score was negative five, above the threshold. On the ROWPVT and EOWPVT, the Student performed within the average range in both receptive and expressive one-word vocabulary. On the CASL-2, the Student’s composite language scores were within the average range, though he performed below average on sentence comprehension. (Exh. 4). [REDACTED] concluded that [REDACTED] did not qualify for direct speech-language services. (Tr. 74).

On February 25, 2026, a cognitive evaluation of the Student was conducted by [REDACTED], a school psychologist. [REDACTED] was on maternity leave at the time of the hearing and did not testify. Her findings were presented by [REDACTED], a school psychologist who reviewed the completed report approximately one week before the PPT meeting. [REDACTED] selected and administered the WPPSI-IV; the GARS-3; the SRS-2; the BASC-3; and the Vineland-3. She also conducted a classroom observation.

On the WPPSI-IV, the Student received a Full-Scale IQ score of 89, which placed him one point below the average range. On the GARS-3, completed by both the parent and the Student’s classroom teacher, the teacher ratings produced a "probable" score of autism, while the parent's ratings were somewhat higher. On the SRS-2, which measures social responsiveness, the teacher's scores fell within normal limits, whereas the parent’s scores indicated a student in the “moderate” range. (Tr. 109). On the BASC-3, completed by the Student’s classroom teacher, the Student fell in the average range with the exception of hyperactivity, atypicality, and attention problems, all of which fell in the at-risk range. On the Vineland-3, completed by both the classroom teacher and the parent, communication and daily living skills were rated in the moderately low range in the school setting. [REDACTED] classroom observation documented that the Student was engaged and participating in the classroom task, though somewhat disengaged during a "brain break" activity. (Exh. 5).

A triennial review PPT meeting was convened on March 18, 2026. The team refused to identify [REDACTED] as a student with autism or with a speech-language impairment, drawing a distinction between his medical diagnoses and an educational classification under the IDEA. (Tr. 149, 162). The team agreed to conduct an additional physical therapy evaluation. On March 19, 2026, the parent emailed [REDACTED] requesting IEEs in the areas of cognitive assessment and physical therapy. (Tr. 155).

Conclusions of Law

Federal and State regulations provide that, subject to certain limitations, a parent has the right to an independent educational evaluation (“IEE”) at public expense if the parent disagrees with an evaluation obtained by the school district. 34 CFR 300.502(a). If a parent requests an IEE at public expense, the school district must, without unnecessary delay, ensure that either an IEE is provided at public expense or initiate an impartial hearing to show that its evaluation is appropriate or that the evaluation obtained by the parent does not meet the school district criteria. 34 CFR Sect. 300.502(b)(2)(i)-(ii); Regs Conn. State Agencies 10-76d-9. If a school district's evaluation is appropriate, a parent may not obtain an IEE at public expense. 34 CFR 300.502(b)(3); D.S. By & Through M.S. v. Trumbull Bd. of Educ., 975 F.3d 152, 158 (2d Cir. 2020). However, if the parent shows that the District evaluation is inappropriate, or if the District unnecessarily delays in seeking an impartial hearing to contest a parent's request for an IEE, the IHO may order that the District provide the requested I.E.E. at public expense.

In evaluating a Student, the IDEA requires school districts to “use a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information” but does not mandate that every possible evaluation be conducted or considered. As one court explained, “the IDEA does not require that the team review every single item of data available” or conduct every assessment parents might request. T.G. ex rel. R.P. v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 973 F.Supp.2d 320 (2013).

The parent requested two separate IEEs: one in the area of cognitive assessment and one in the area of physical therapy. The parent contended that the evaluation should have included a physical therapy assessment, basing her position on the view that a school district cannot “cure” a defective evaluation offering assessments afterward. The parent also argued that the evaluation should have included a vision assessment. The parent noted that the Student wears prescription glasses and that the parent had provided the District with documentation from his ophthalmologist. The parent also pointed out that only one of the assessments even mentioned accommodations related to the Student’s vision, and none specifically addressed what accommodations would be required to ensure he could accurately see the testing materials. She argued that the failure to account for the visual impairment when administering standardized assessments calls into question whether any of the test results accurately reflect the student's abilities rather than his visual limitations.

But both [REDACTED] effectively stated that physical therapy and vision were not “areas of concern” for evaluation purposes. The parent did not present any testimony or evidence to rebut that testimony or support her arguments. It is true that, pursuant to the Battelle developmental evaluation, the Student scored 72 in the motor domain, representing a mild developmental delay. And it is also true that [REDACTED] noted in her educational evaluation that the Student could only copy from a near point (directly in front of him). But the parent did not explain why more information was needed on these issues, or even what a vision assessment or a physical therapy assessment would look like.

It is noted that the IDEA does not require perfection in special education evaluations. District courts in the Second Circuit have recognized that not every procedural violation during an evaluation constitutes denial of free and appropriate public education under Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. Maus v. Wappingers Cent. School Dist., 688 F.Supp.2d 282 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).

The parent also relied on the fact that the school district offered to conduct an assessment after the evaluation process was over. I agree that a school district cannot “cure” an evaluation after the evaluation process has ended. Letter to Carroll, Office of Special Education Programs, 68 IDELR 279 (October 22, 2016). However, I do not consider the school district’s offer to the parent to conduct a physical therapy assessment after the evaluation to be an admission that a physical therapy assessment should have been part of the original reevaluation. In this context, the school district’s decision to provide a physical therapy evaluation after the evaluation was over is best viewed as an attempt to accommodate the parent’s concerns, as opposed to an attempt to fix a defective evaluation.

In her closing argument, the parent also offered a critique of the assessments. First, she challenged the occupational therapy assessment, arguing that [REDACTED] decision not to administer any standardized assessments was inappropriate. She challenged the speech-language assessment, arguing that [REDACTED] autism-related professional training was limited to webinar courses with no specialized licensure or certification in the area, that she used outdated editions of two instruments, and that she acknowledged uncertainty about whether the 2025 editions would have produced different results. She also argued that the speech-language report was internally inconsistent. However, on these points, the parent did not present any evidence or testimony, and the parent did not reference anything from an occupational therapist or a speech therapist in support of her arguments. The school district, on the other hand, presented the occupational therapist who authored the report, the speech-language pathologist who authored the speech report, and a psychologist to present [REDACTED] evaluation. These witnesses were all well-credentialled, and they all presented credible testimony in support of their view that the Student’s evaluation was proper and covered all suspected areas of disability, including speech and language, and occupational therapy.

The parent also argued that the evaluation process was procedurally deficient because of the Board's failure to include the parent as a collaborative partner. She noted that the BASC-3 scales did not include the parent, and that [REDACTED] provided rating scale forms only to the Student’s classroom teacher and not to the parent for the CCC-2 communication checklist. She argued that these omissions were inconsistent with the IDEA's collaborative evaluation framework and undermined the comprehensiveness of both evaluations. The record is not clear on why the parent did not fill out these scales, but the evidence suggests that the school district already had a significant amount of information from the parent, who did respond on the SRS-2 measure, where she indicated that the Student was in the moderate range for social skills deficits.

Finally, the parent also argued that the school district should have conducted a cognitive assessment of the Student. However, [REDACTED] tested the Student’s cognitive ability through the Battelle measure. The parent did not explain why she felt that an additional cognitive assessment of the Student was necessary. Nor did she explain what a comprehensive cognitive evaluation of a six-year-old child with autism and a documented motor delay should have looked like. Without any kind of affirmative showing from the parent, this hearing officer is left with only the District's witnesses testifying that what they did was appropriate.

In sum, I find that the school district’s evaluation of the Student was appropriate, and that the request for an IEE must be denied.

Relief

As a result of the foregoing:

1. I find that the school district’s evaluation of the Student was appropriate;
2. The parent’s request for an IEE must be denied.

Dated: May 18, 2026

Michael Lazan IH