Connecticut State Department of Education

Final Decision and Order Case #26-0592

September 4, 2026

Student v. Greenwich Board of Education

Appearing on behalf of the Parents:
Meredith Braxton, Esq.
Meredith C. Braxton Esq. LLC
57 Old Post Road Suite 201
Greenwich, CT 06380

Appearing on behalf of the Board:
Abby Wadler, Esq.
Greenwich Town Hall
Law Department
101 Field Point Rd.
Greenwich, CT 06784

Appearing before:
Sylvia Ho, Esq.
Hearing Officer

Final Decision And Order

Issues:

  1. Does the Student qualify for special education services?
  2. Does the Student require motor-based speech therapy by a qualified therapist to receive a free and appropriate public education?
  3. If the Student requires motor-based therapy to receive FAPE, did the Board deny Student a free and appropriate public education from April 2025 to the present by failing to provide such therapy?
  4. If yes, are the Parents entitled to compensatory education?
  5. Are the Parents also entitled to compensatory education for missed speech therapy sessions from April 1 through April 23, 2026?
  6. Are the Parents entitled to reimbursement for an independent speech evaluation by Private Evaluator 1?

Procedural History:

The Parents filed the Due Process Complaint/Hearing Request on April 21, 2026. The Hearing Officer was appointed on April 23, 2026 and conducted a Prehearing Conference on May 13, 2026. Hearings were conducted virtually on the following dates: June 17, July 1, July 9 and July 15, 2026. At the request of the parties, the mailing date of the Final Decision was extended to September 4, 2026.

The Due Process Complaint/Hearing Request was admitted as Exhibit H.O.-1. At the request of the Hearing Officer, the Board provided the Student's report cards, which were entered as Exhibit H.O.-2. Parents and Board agreed to Stipulated Facts, which were entered as Exhibit H.O.-3. The Parents' Exhibits P-1 through P-23 were entered as full exhibits. The Board's Exhibits B-1 through P-123 were entered as full exhibits.

The Board presented the following witnesses: Classroom Teacher, Special Education Teacher 1 and Special Education 2, Special Education Coordinator, School-based Speech and Language Pathologist, School Psychologist-1, School-Psychologist-2, and Vice-Principal. The Parents presented the following witnesses: Student's mother, a private school psychologist expert witness, Private Evaluator 1 and Private Evaluator 2.

This Final Decision and Order sets forth the Hearing Officer's summary and findings of facts and conclusions of law set forth herein, which reference certain exhibits and witness testimony are not meant to exclude other supported evidence in the record. All evidence presented was considered in deciding this matter. To the extent the summary, procedural history and findings of facts actually represent conclusions of law, they should so be considered and vice versa. See SAS Institute Inc. v. S & H Computer Systems, Inc., 605 F. Supp. 816 (M.D. Tenn. 1985) and Bonnie Ann F. Callallen Independent School Board, 835 F. Supp. 340 (S.D. Tex. 1993). All motions that were not previously ruled upon are hereby denied.

Summary:

The student was determined by the IEP team to be no longer eligible for special education and was exited from special education. The student is diagnosed with Childhood Apraxia of Speech and continues to experience symptoms of apraxia and residual difficulties with intelligibility outside of school, but is functioning well in the school environment. The issues in this Due Process Hearing concern whether the Student continues to be eligible for special education under the disability category of Speech and Language Impairment.

Statement Of Jurisdiction:

This matter was heard as a contested case pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes (C.G.S.) §10-76h and related regulations, 20 United States Code §1415(f) and related regulations, and in accordance with the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (U.A.P.A.), C.G.S. §§4-176e to 4-178, inclusive, §§4-181a and 4-186.

Findings Of Fact:

After considering all the evidence submitted by the Parties, including documentary evidence and testimony of witnesses, I find the following facts:

  1. The Student was born on April 20, 2017, and was nine years old at the time of the hearing. During the 2025-2026 school year, the Student attended third grade. The Student has a diagnosis of Childhood Apraxia of Speech and was eligible for special education under the disability category of speech and language impairment. (Stipulated Facts)
  2. Student is cognitively gifted. In April 2023, during Kindergarten, his Full Scale Intelligence score was measured to be 132 and in April 2026 to be 135. (Stipulated Facts)
  3. School personnel described the Student as bright, social, respectful, engaged, and successful in the general education setting. He participated in class, maintained positive relationships with peers and adults, and performed at or above grade level academically. The Mother described the Student as creative, highly intelligent, bright, friendly, active, witty, and easygoing, with substantial ideas, a good sense of humor, and a strong desire to communicate his ideas. (Testimony, Classroom Teacher, School Psychologist, School-based Speech and Language Pathologist, Mother).
  4. The Student received early-intervention services through Birth to Three and became eligible for special education on June 10, 2020, under the disability category of speech and language impairment. (Stipulated Facts).
  5. The Student’s Individualized Education Plan ("IEP") provided regular speech-language services throughout elementary school. Beginning in December 2023, he received four 30-minute speech-language sessions per week. (Stipulated Facts).
  6. For approximately one year beginning in May 2024, three of the Student’s weekly speech-language sessions were provided by an outside therapist with PROMPT Level II certification and focused on motor-based speech intervention. (Stipulated Facts).
  7. During the 2024–2025 school year, the Student read above grade level and demonstrated strengths in decoding, comprehension, inferencing, prediction, and use of textual evidence. He also performed above grade level in mathematics, including advanced computation, multi-step word problems, and enrichment activities. He participated actively in class and regularly shared his ideas. (H.O-2 Report Cards, p. 5).
  8. Writing was an area of continued development during the 2024–2025 school year. The Student’s report card described him as having good writing skills that he did not always apply consistently. His work included research and nonfiction writing, a historical biography, and text-based responses. Instruction focused on organization, elaboration, conventions, spelling, handwriting, and consistent application of skills. (H.O.-2 Report Cards, p. 5).
  9. On April 8, 2025, the Planning and Placement Team ("PPT") convened for the Student’s annual review and to plan the Student’s three-year reevaluation. The meeting was attended by the Parents, the Student’s general education teacher, special education teacher/provider, school administrator or designee, school psychologist, school-based speech-language pathologist, district program coordinator of special education and student supports, an outside speech-language pathologist, and a special education parent advocate. (B-19)
  10. At the April 8, 2025 meeting, the Parents reported that the Student had experienced a fairly successful second-grade year, with some ups and downs. They stated that the classroom teacher had been very supportive and that there had been good communication regarding the Student’s work through challenges. The Student had accepted placement in the Advanced Learning Program ("ALP") in February/March and appeared happy and engaged in the program. The Parents reported that the Student enjoyed the challenge, including reading chapter books and completing homework that the family reviewed together. They stated that the Student had made progress with his speech, although his intelligibility was inconsistent because of his apraxia. They observed that he was more intelligible at some times than at others, particularly when he needed reminders to slow down and use his speech strategies. The Parents also reported that the Student had experienced emotional challenges during the year, including frustration, crying, or shutting down, and that they had been working with him to develop coping strategies and improve his self-esteem. (B-19)
  11. The PPT reviewed the Student’s performance during the 2024-2025 school year. The classroom teacher reported that the Student had experienced some emotional challenges, particularly with writing composition, which could result in frustration, crying, or shutting down. The Student had acquired the skills taught in class but lacked confidence and had difficulty initiating writing tasks. The teacher reported that, despite positive feedback from peers and teachers, the Student could be dismissive of that feedback and had difficulty working with the school psychologist to develop coping mechanisms and build self-esteem. The Student’s academic testing reflected above-grade-level performance in several areas, including Foundations in Unit Assessments scores ranging from 92 to 100, an overall Foundations score of 389, and a Measure of Academic Progress ("MAP") score of 425. The latter two scores were reported as approximately the 99th percentile. (B-19)
  12. The PPT also reviewed the Student’s speech and language progress. The school-based speech-language pathologist reported that the Student had made progress in speech, particularly with voicing and devoicing sounds, and had demonstrated at least 80 percent accuracy on goals 16 and 17. The Student nevertheless continued to require prompting to slow his speech and apply his speech strategies in the classroom. The outside speech-language pathologist reported significant recent progress, including improvement in the Student’s production of the /r/ sound, although his speech remained less intelligible when he spoke rapidly or became excited. The outside speech-language pathologist also reported that the Student continued to have difficulty with motor planning and sequencing and that his awareness of his speech difficulties, together with his apraxia, caused frustration. The School-based language pathologist reported that the Student had mastered his goals with almost no support. The IEP mastery data reflected that the Student had mastered 15 of 31 objectives, representing an overall success rate of 42 percent. (B-19)
  13. For the 2025-2026 school year, the PPT developed a draft IEP containing speech and language goals and services. The school-based speech-language pathologist proposed direct speech-language services three times per week for 30 minutes in a one-to-one pull-out setting. The school psychologist proposed indirect consultation for 15 minutes every two weeks with the Student and 15 minutes every two weeks with the classroom teacher. The family and outside speech-language pathologist took the position that the Student required Prompts for Restructuring Oral Muscular Phonetic Targets ("PROMPT") Level 2 methodology and that PROMPT should be written into the IEP. The PPT disagreed that PROMPT methodology and a PROMPT Level 2 provider were required for the Student to make progress on his IEP goals and objectives. The PPT did not recommend Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium ("SBAC") accommodations for the Student at that time. The Student was determined eligible for extended school year speech services for 30 minutes twice per week and did not require assistive technology or specialized transportation. The Parents agreed to the proposed IEP. (B-19)
  14. The PPT also planned the Student’s three-year reevaluation in the areas of speech and language, academic achievement, social-emotional functioning, and behavior. The team discussed the Student’s present academic achievement and noted that he was above grade level in all areas except writing. The classroom teacher reported that the Student had the skills to write, but writing was not a preferred task, and expressed no concern about his ability to compose written assignments. The Parents agreed with the proposed testing. (B-19)
  15. The proposed three-year reevaluation included the Behavior Assessment System for Children, Third Edition (“BASC-3”), a measure used to assess behavioral and emotional functioning, to be administered by the school psychologist; the Piers-Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale, Second Edition (“Piers-Harris 2”), a measure of the Student’s self-concept and perceptions of himself, to be administered by the school psychologist; and the Conners Rating Scale, Fourth Edition, a rating measure used to assess behavioral, attention, and related functioning, to be administered by the school psychologist. The proposed cognitive assessment was the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fifth Edition (“WISC-V”), used to assess intellectual and cognitive functioning, to be administered by the school psychologist. The academic assessment was the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, Fourth Edition (“WIAT-4”), used to assess academic achievement, to be administered by the special education teacher.  (B-19)
  16. The proposed speech and language reevaluation included the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals, Fifth Edition (“CELF-5”), used to assess receptive and expressive language abilities, to be administered by speech-language personnel; the Dynamic Evaluation of Motor Speech Skill (“DEMSS”), used to assess motor-speech planning and production, to be administered by the speech-language pathologist; and the Arizona Articulation and Phonology Scale, Fourth Edition, used to assess articulation and phonological speech-sound production, to be administered by the speech-language pathologist. The District’s consent form stated that no special adaptations or accommodations were required for the evaluation.   (B-19)
  17. The District subsequently sought the Parents’ written consent to conduct the Student’s three-year reevaluation using the proposed assessments. The consent form reflects that the proposed tests and evaluation procedures were recommended and that the District sought consent to conduct the three-year reevaluation. The Parent signed the consent form on January 28, 2026, thereby providing written consent for the reevaluation.  (B-18)
  18. The Student’s annual review and triennial evaluation IEP meeting was noticed on January 28, 2026, and scheduled for March 19, 2026. Procedural safeguards were enclosed with the notice. (B-7)
  19. On March 2, 2026, a Notice of Planning and Placement Meeting was sent rescheduling the meeting for March 18, 2026. (B-8)
  20. On March 11, 2026, the school-based speech-language pathologist emailed the Parents and provided the Student’s triennial evaluation and progress report in advance of the upcoming PPT meeting. The speech-language pathologist advised that the progress report was also available through the parent portal and offered to review it with the Parents before the meeting. (P-7)
  21. On March 16, 2026, the Parents replied that they needed to postpone the Student’s triennial IEP meeting, which had been scheduled for March 18, 2026, and stated that they would follow up regarding next steps. The classroom teacher acknowledged the Parents’ notice. Later that day, the school-based speech-language pathologist advised the Parents that March 19, 2026, would be ten school days before implementation and that the Student’s existing IEP would lapse on April 7, 2026. (P-7)
  22. On March 17, 2026, the school vice principal/administrator responded to the Parents and offered two alternative dates for the annual and triennial review PPT: March 20, 2026, at 9:45 a.m. or March 25, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. On March 19, 2026, the school vice principal/administrator followed up, again offering those dates and advising that the meeting could be held either in person or virtually. (P-7)
  23. On March 20, 2026, the Parents responded that they disagreed with the Student’s speech and language triennial evaluation results because they did not believe the results accurately reflected the Student’s daily functional speech. The Parents stated that they were seeking a second opinion, requested additional time before rescheduling the PPT, and indicated that they would provide their availability the following week. Later that morning, the school vice principal/administrator informed the Parents that, because of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA") timelines, the PPT was required to convene before April 7, 2026, and scheduled the annual and triennial review for March 30, 2026, at 1:45 p.m., while advising the Parents that an earlier meeting could be scheduled if they were available. The school vice principal/administrator also provided another copy of the procedural safeguards. (B-5, P-7)
  24. The PPT was held on March 31, 2026, to conduct the annual review, review the triennial evaluation, and determine whether the Student continued to meet eligibility criteria for special education. The PPT members present were the Parents, the school administrator, classroom teacher, special education teacher, school psychologist, school-based speech-language pathologist, and special education coordinator. (B-2).
  25. The school team reviewed the results of the 2026 reevaluations and reported that the Student was performing successfully in the general education setting and making academic progress. The classroom teacher described the Student as highly verbal, engaged in instruction, and consistently willing to participate in class discussions. The teacher reported that he was understood by peers, communicated effectively throughout the school day, and was comfortable participating in presentations. His speech could be less clear during less structured or unstructured periods, particularly when he was not fully engaged in the topic. The classroom teacher reported that the Student was comfortable speaking in front of the class, actively participated in presentations, and had a class project for which he was scheduled to present orally. The teacher further reported that his effective communication was not limited to speech-language sessions but was observed throughout the school day, including in the classroom, lunchroom, hallways, and interactions with staff and peers. (B-2)
  26. The Parents reported that the Student loved reading at home, particularly the Harry Potter series. The PPT also reviewed the Student’s reading-fluency data, which reflected 145 words correct per minute with 100 percent accuracy, a score above the identified benchmark.  (B-2)
  27. Although the Parents reported that the Student could sometimes become “stuck” and unsure how to proceed with certain academic tasks, particularly writing, they also reported that he was able to work through those difficulties with teacher support. At the annual review, the PPT described the Student as generally performing well academically. (B-2)
  28. As part of the Student’s triennial evaluation, the school-based speech-language pathologist conducted standardized testing, observed the Student in the classroom, and obtained information from school personnel regarding his speech intelligibility and participation. She also considered information provided by the Parents. (B-2)
  29. The speech-language pathologist observed the Student during classroom group work and games and reported no concerns regarding his speech or language functioning. The school-based speech-language pathologist also spoke with the Student’s classroom teacher, educational evaluator, physical education teachers, and orchestra teacher, who reported that they did not believe his speech interfered with their ability to understand him or with his participation in school activities. Although the classroom teacher noted that the Student could be less clear in unstructured settings, the speech-language pathologist attributed this primarily to background noise rather than to a consistent intelligibility problem. (Testimony, School-based Speech and Language Pathologist).
  30. The speech-language pathologist administered the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals, Fifth Edition ("CELF-5"), to assess the Student’s receptive and expressive language skills. Although the Student has a diagnosis of Speech Apraxia, he scored in the average to above-average range in grammar, syntax, and integration of vocabulary. The Word Structure subtest measures grammar and syntax, including the use of grammatical forms such as plurals and verb endings, and may be more difficult for children with apraxia because of additional motor-planning demands. The Student performed in the average to above-average range on this subtest. The Formulated Sentences subtest requires a student to generate sentences using specified words in conjunction with a picture and measures the integration of vocabulary, grammar, and syntax. The Student performed above average on this subtest. The CELF-5 also included a Pragmatics Profile, a teacher-completed rating scale addressing the Student’s use of language in social situations. The Student scored in the average range for his age. (Testimony, School-based Speech and Language Pathologist, B-12)
  31. The Arizona Articulation and Phonology Scale, Fourth Edition ("Arizona-4"), measures speech-sound production at the single-word and sentence levels. The Student scored within normal limits on Word Articulation (standard score 90.5) and Sentence Articulation (standard score 93.5); however, both results were described as “intelligible, although noticeably in error,” reflecting continued errors that affected overall speech intelligibility. The Arizona-4 documented variable speech-sound errors, including vowel distortions, devoicing, gliding of initial /r/, and vocalic /r/ distortions. The report interpreted these errors as reflecting difficulty executing the motor movements required for accurate speech production. (B-12; Testimony, School-based Speech-Language Pathologist).
  32. The school-based speech-language pathologist concluded that, although speech and language remained an area of concern, the Student had made progress over time. The PPT reviewed the annual review progress report and mastery data from the prior IEP. The school team reported that the Student’s communication success extended beyond speech-language sessions and was observed in multiple school settings, including the classroom, lunchroom, hallways, and interactions with staff and peers. The team also considered the Student’s triennial speech-language, psychological, and educational evaluations and concluded that the Student’s Childhood Apraxia of Speech was not adversely affecting his educational performance. Based on the evaluation data and the Student’s present levels of academic achievement and functional performance, the school team determined that he no longer met the eligibility criteria for special education under the IDEA. (B-2)
  33. The Parents disagreed with the school team’s conclusions. They reported that, although the Student had made progress, they continued to observe frequent communication breakdowns at home and in other settings outside school. They stated that the Student could have difficulty when reading aloud, producing longer or more complex words, or when syllables were distorted, and that unfamiliar listeners sometimes asked him to repeat himself or looked to the Parents for clarification. The Parents expressed concern that the Student’s standardized speech-language scores and successful communication in the school setting did not fully reflect his functional communication difficulties across environments. (B-2)
  34. The Parents further stated that they believed the Student’s speech difficulties had an educational impact because difficulty communicating effectively in front of others could limit his ability to participate in presentations and other important life experiences. They also stated that special education services were working for the Student and asked whether his services could be reduced rather than discontinued. The school team responded that the issue before the PPT was whether the Student continued to qualify for specially designed instruction under a recognized IDEA disability category, rather than whether services could simply be reduced. The Parents maintained their disagreement with the eligibility determination and were advised of their due process rights. (B-2)
  35. The Parents disagreed with the decision to exit the Student from special education, stressing that his speech difficulties had an educational impact and could limit his participation in important activities. They questioned the elimination of services for a child who had received support since age two, advocated for reducing rather than removing services, and reiterated their disagreement with the eligibility determination. The Parents advocated for continued support and expressed concern about the effect of removing services, emphasizing the need to address the Student’s academic and functional needs, particularly in real-world communication settings. After the IEP and Prior Written Notice were issued, the Parents provided a redlined document proposing revisions to more accurately summarize their concerns. (B-1, B-2)
  36. The Parents filed a Due Process Complaint on April 21, 2026. The requested relief included an order that the Student continued to be eligible for special education; continued speech services with an “appropriate provider”; compensatory education sessions from April 2025 based on the allegation that the school-based speech-language pathologist did not have “required motor-therapy training”; and stay-put in the Student’s special education program. After the Due Process Complaint was filed, the Student continued to receive speech services under the IEP and make-up sessions for services missed from March 31, 2026, through June 19, 2026, the end of the 2025-2026 school year. (H.O.-1 Complaint and Stipulation of the parties at the July 1, 2026 hearing.)
  37. In addition to filing the Due Process Complaint, the Parents obtained private evaluations from two private speech-language pathologists. Private Evaluator 1 is a clinical practitioner, independent evaluator, and educational consultant and holds a Clinical Doctorate in Speech-Language Pathology. Private Evaluator 2 holds a Master’s degree in Speech-Language Pathology. (Testimony, Private Evaluators 1 and 2, P-22, P-23)
  38. After the Parents provided the School with the evaluations, the School scheduled a PPT, which convened on June 15, 2026, to review the evaluations and consider a referral to special education. The participants were the Parents, school vice principal, classroom teacher, school psychologist, special education teacher, school-based speech-language pathologist, district special education coordinator, town attorney, family’s attorney, Private Evaluator 1, and a private pediatric speech-language pathologist. (B-123, B-120)
  39. The Parents shared a statement conveying their difficulty understanding why the Student no longer qualified for special education when he continued to have deficits in speech intelligibility. The Parents were also concerned that the school-based members of the PPT placed significant weight on the Student’s academic performance. Their concerns centered on what they described as the “important question” of whether the Student had “generalized motor speech skills across settings, communication partners and spontaneous speech.” They noted that the Student continued to experience intelligibility difficulties and was often asked to repeat himself. The Parents urged the PPT to “ensure that [Student] receives the support he needs to communicate effectively, not only in the safety and familiarity of his third-grade classroom environment, but also outside those doors, where others are not familiar with him and may not have the patience (or ability) to decipher what he is trying to say.” (B-120, 2 of 5).
  40. The private evaluators presented the results of their evaluation and expressed the view that the severity of the Student’s speech impediment warranted continued speech and language services. They further stated that ongoing intervention would help the Student maintain confidence as a communicator and improve his ability to navigate conversations independently with people outside his familiar environment. (B-120)
  41. The classroom teacher reported no academic, behavioral, social, or communication concerns and stated that the Student communicated effectively with peers, collaborated appropriately, and interacted successfully across school settings. The teacher described the Student as a positive, socially engaged student who got along well with peers, collaborated effectively in group activities, initiated participation, and presented comfortably in class. The classroom teacher also observed successful communication with unfamiliar listeners on school field trips outside the school environment and reported that the Student communicated confidently and effectively with unfamiliar adults.(B-120)
  42. Both private evaluators testified at the hearing that the Student had made progress in speech and language during the 2025-2026 school year. (Testimony, Private Evaluator 1 and Private Evaluator 2)
  43. Private Evaluator 2 observed the Student in the classroom for 30 minutes. The evaluator testified that she spoke with the classroom teacher and vice principal, both of whom told her that the Student was doing well. She testified during the hearing that she observed the Student working with a peer to develop a mammal species with Play-Doh. Although he was engaged in the activity, his verbal interaction was limited. He used simple sentences, basic vocabulary, isolated words, and phrases, and did not clarify or repair communication when he was misunderstood. In contrast, the private speech-language pathologist’s evaluation results for the Test of Narrative Language, Second Edition ("TNL-2"), showed that, while the Student’s receptive language (comprehension) skills fell within the average range, the Student’s “expressive language (production) skills were a relative strength” in the 84th percentile, “indicating a well-developed vocabulary, semantic organization, and expressive language formation when speech and motor demands are minimized. His performance suggests that he has the linguistic knowledge necessary to formulate age-appropriate verbal responses.” (Testimony, Private Speech-Language Pathologist 2; P-18, 19 of 35).
  44. The private evaluators’ evaluations were consistent with the assessments conducted by the school-based speech-language pathologist. The school-based speech-language pathologist and the Parents’ private evaluators agreed that the Student had made progress, performed more successfully at the single-word level, and continued to demonstrate residual features associated with Childhood Apraxia of Speech. (P-1, Testimony, Private Evaluator 1, P-18, Testimony, Private Evaluator 2)
  45. Both the District and private evaluations reflected stronger performance on simple, familiar, and highly practiced words, residual motor-speech errors, and overall progress. (Testimony, School-based Speech and Language Pathologist, Private Evaluator 1, Private Evaluator 2, P-1, P-18)
  46. The private evaluators found reduced accuracy in multisyllabic words, phrases, sentences, and connected speech and concluded that single-word measures did not fully capture the Student’s difficulties. The private evaluations identified residual weaknesses involving movement sequencing, coarticulation, prosody, lexical stress, voicing control, vowel production, and intelligibility in connected speech. (Testimony, Private Evaluator 1 and 2, P-1, P-18)
  47. Private Evaluator 1 administered the Speech Intelligibility and Visual Analog Rating Scale, an assessment in which five adults listened to a recording of the Student speaking. Unfamiliar listeners with education-related backgrounds were able to understand him, while unfamiliar listeners without education or child-development backgrounds produced a collective intelligibility rating of 47 percent. (Testimony, Private Evaluator 1)
  48. In the school setting, the Student was generally understood by teachers, staff, and peers. His classroom teacher testified that she and his classmates understood him. (Testimony, Classroom Teacher, Vice-Principal, School Psychologist)
  49. Although the Student occasionally needed to repeat himself, his classroom teacher reported that this occurred at a frequency similar to other students. She also observed increased confidence and intelligibility during the school year. (Testimony, Classroom Teacher)
  50. The school psychologist did not observe communication breakdowns. Other school personnel, including the orchestra teacher, likewise reported that the Student was understood by staff and peers. (Testimony, School Psychologist, Testimony, School-based Speech and Language Pathologist)
  51. A video exhibit introduced at the hearing, and viewed by the Hearing Officer, showed the Student and three classmates giving presentations to the third-grade class. During the Student’s presentation, the class remained attentive. The Student read his portion of the presentation from the screen, addressed the class, and appeared comparably comfortable with the presentation task as his peers. His speech impairment was audible, but his presentation was understandable to a listener. The video did not show withdrawal or visible discomfort associated with speaking before the class. After the presentation, the teacher asked the class if there were questions, and a classmate asked the age of inventor when he died. The co-presenters debated whether the inventor was 78 or 79 years old when he died, based on his birthdate. The classmates went back and forth. The Student confidently volunteered, “seventy-eight and three quarters.” The teacher chuckled and asked the classmate whether that answer specifically answered his question. Another adult asked the Student why the pay phone was an important invention. The Student confidently answered that "it was because people who did not have telephones could be charged in places that did not have them." (B-116, B-117, P-14)
  52. The Student has a longstanding motor-speech disability and has made measurable progress during the period addressed in the record. (Testimony, School-based Speech and Language Pathologist, Classroom Teacher, Vice-Principal, Private Evaluator 1 and 2)
  53. His reading and mathematics skills are strong, and his writing and oral communication improved during the 2025–2026 school year. (H.O.-2 Report Cards p. 8-9)
  54. By the third marking period of the 2025–2026 school year, the Student was rated by his teacher as having a "secure skill" (the highest mark) in participating in collaborative conversations with peers and adults about grade 3 topics and texts, building on each other's ideas and expressing his own clearly and presenting his thoughts, feels and ideas clearly to an audience. (H.O.- 2Report Card p.8)
  55. The Student continues to demonstrate residual apraxia-related speech weaknesses, particularly as speech becomes longer, more complex, and less familiar. (Testimony, School-based Speech and Language Pathologist, Private Evaluator 1 and Private Evaluator 2)
  56. The Parents are concerned that the Student’s progress in structured speech therapy does not sufficiently generalize to ordinary conversation. (Testimony, Mother, B-120)
  57. The Parents seek a program designed to improve the Student’s independent communication with peers, adults, and unfamiliar listeners across school and community settings. (Testimony, Mother, B-120)
  58. The Parents challenge the adequacy of the District’s triennial evaluation and the decision to discontinue special education eligibility. The Parents contend that the District placed too much weight on academic achievement, familiar-listener intelligibility, and structured or single-word testing, and insufficient weight on connected speech, narrative production, unfamiliar listeners, and communication outside the classroom. (Testimony, Mother, B-120)
  59. The Parents also contend that the PPT did not meaningfully consider parental concerns, private evaluations, and recommendations from outside experts, and that these alleged shortcomings denied the Student FAPE and limited meaningful parental participation. (Testimony, Mother)
  60. The Parents’ concerns regarding the PPT process focus on whether the team meaningfully considered their input and the recommendations of the private evaluators. The Mother testified that meaningful participation requires more than attendance at meetings and an opportunity to express concerns; in the Parents’ view, the PPT should engage with the information presented by the family and outside evaluators when considering the Student’s eligibility, methodology, frequency of services, goals, provider qualifications, and progress monitoring. (Testimony, Mother)
  61. The Mother expects the Student’s special education program to provide speech-language services that will enable the Student to communicate effectively and independently with peers, adults, and unfamiliar listeners, both in school and outside the school environment. She does not view progress within a structured therapy session, standing alone, as sufficient. Rather, she expects the Student to generalize acquired speech skills to ordinary conversation and to different people and settings. She testified that the goal of the program should be to reduce the difference between the Student’s speech intelligibility and that of nondisabled peers and, ultimately, to enable the Student to produce targeted sounds independently in conversation. The Parents believe that achieving those results requires a more intensive and specifically designed speech program. (Testimony, Mother)

Conclusions Of Law And Discussion:

  1. The purpose of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA") is to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them FAPE that emphasizes “special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs” and “prepare them for further education, employment and independent living” and “to ensure that the rights of children with disabilities and parents of such children are protected…” 20 U.S.C. §1400(d)(1).
  2. The IDEA was enacted to ensure that children with disabilities receive a free appropriate public education designed to meet their unique needs and “prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living.” 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A). Although those purposes contemplate a Student’s future beyond school, the obligations imposed by the IDEA are educational in nature.
  3. The Supreme Court’s decisions in Board of Education v. Rowley and Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1 provide the broader framework for that analysis. In Rowley, the Court explained that Congress sought primarily to provide children with disabilities meaningful access to public education. 458 U.S. 176, 192, 200–01 (1982). In Endrew F., the Court held that an IEP must be “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” 580 U.S. 386, 399 (2017). For a student educated in the regular classroom, the IDEA ordinarily contemplates advancement through the general education curriculum. Id. at 401–03. The IDEA’s definition of specially designed instruction reflects that same focus by requiring instruction adapted to address disability-related needs and “to ensure access of the child to the general curriculum.” 34 C.F.R. § 300.39(b)(3).
  4. Consistent with Rowley and Endrew F., the Second Circuit has held that the IDEA requires an educational program that provides meaningful educational benefit, but does not require a district to maximize a Student’s potential. Walczak v. Fla. Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 130, 132 (2d Cir. 1998). The IDEA guarantees an appropriate education, “not one that provides everything that might be thought desirable by loving parents.” Id. at 132 (quoting Tucker v. Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist., 873 F.2d 563, 567 (2d Cir. 1989)).
  5. The Second Circuit has also recognized that its requirement of meaningful educational progress is consistent with the standard later articulated in Endrew F. Mr. P. v. West Hartford Bd. of Educ., 885 F.3d 735, 757 (2d Cir. 2018). Courts in other circuits have similarly distinguished the IDEA’s educational purpose from remediation of the disability itself. See Klein Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Hovem, 690 F.3d 390, 398–400 (5th Cir. 2012) (“overall educational benefit, not solely disability remediation, is IDEA’s statutory goal”); Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 283 v. S.D., 948 F. Supp. 860, 885 (D. Minn. 1995), aff’d, 88 F.3d 556 (8th Cir. 1996) (the IDEA does not require a district to “cure the disabilities which impair a child’s ability to learn”).
  6. Difficulties occurring outside the classroom may be educationally significant when they interfere with the Student’s ability to access instruction, make appropriate progress, communicate in the educational environment, or otherwise receive FAPE. As guided by the court cases cited above, the relevant inquiry, however, is whether the disability-related difficulty creates an educational need requiring special education. The evidence concerning the Student’s intelligibility to unfamiliar listeners outside the school environment is relevant, but it does not, standing alone, establish a continuing need for special education. The IDEA does not require the District to continue specially designed instruction solely because additional speech services might further improve the Student’s speech or make the Student more readily understood in settings beyond school. Rather, the question is whether the residual speech impairment adversely affects the Student’s educational performance in the educational environment to prevent the Student from accessing the general education curriculum and whether, by reason of that impairment, the Student continues to require specially designed instruction.
  7. The existence of a residual speech impairment does not, standing alone, establish continued eligibility under the IDEA. The impairment must adversely affect the Student’s educational performance. N.C. v. Bedford Cent. Sch. Dist., 300 F. App’x 11, 13 (2d Cir. 2008). Moreover, the Student must continue to require special education by reason of the impairment. See 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3)(A); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-76ff(b)(1)(C). Connecticut’s current Special Education Procedures and Practices Manual similarly identifies three requirements for eligibility: 1) the Student must have a qualifying disability; 2) the disability must adversely affect the Student’s educational performance; and, 3) by reason of that disability, the Student must need special education and related services. CSDE, Special Education Procedures and Practices Manual, Ch. 4, Evaluation and Eligibility, at 31. Specially designed instruction, in turn, addresses the unique needs resulting from the disability and ensures access to the general curriculum. 34 C.F.R. § 300.39(b)(3). (emphasis added)
  8. With regard to appropriateness of the 2025-2026 IEP, all of the speech and language expert witnesses agreed that the Student made progress in his special education program in the 2025-2026 school year. The report cards showed consistent progress resulting in secure skills in participating in conversations with peers and comfortably presenting before his classroom and discussing topics with adults and children, including unfamiliar adults on field trips. The 2025-2026 IEP was appropriate. Findings of Fact No. 42, 44, 45, 49, 53 and 54.
  9. The progress made in the special education program has enabled Student to access and participate fully in all parts of the general education curriculum. The Student's disability neither hinders his functioning in the educational environment, nor adversely affect his educational performance in the general curriculum. Therefore, the Student no longer needs special education. Findings of Fact No. 25,29,41,48,50, 51 and 52.
  10. The Parents claim that they were denied a right to meaningful participation in the decision to exit Student from special education and the School refusal to provide a motor based therapy with a PROMPT therapist in the 2025-2026 school year.
  11. The IDEA requires that parents be afforded a meaningful opportunity to participate in the development of their child’s educational program. That right includes the opportunity to raise concerns, present recommendations, and have those concerns and recommendations considered by the PPT. It does not, however, require the PPT to adopt the Parent’s preferred services, methodology, or recommendations.Doe v. East Lyme Bd. of Educ., 790 F.3d 440, 449 (2d Cir. 2015); T.P. v. Mamaroneck Union Free Sch. Dist., 554 F.3d 247, 253–54 (2d Cir. 2009).
  12. The IDEA guarantees parents meaningful participation in the development of their child’s educational program, but does not give parents the right to dictate the educational methodology used by the school district. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(ii); Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 207–08 (1982) (“questions of methodology are for resolution by the States”). Courts therefore afford particular deference to educational authorities in disputes concerning methodology. M.H. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 685 F.3d 217, 244 (2d Cir. 2012); see also Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F.3d 377, 383 (2d Cir. 2003).
  13. The fact that the PPT ultimately disagrees with the Parent or declined to adopt the recommendations of a Parent expert does not, by itself, establish a procedural violation. Parents do not have the right to veto or dictate the terms of an IEP. The pertinent question is not whether the PPT accepted the Parent’s position, but whether the Parent’s position was heard and considered before the PPT reached its decision. Where the record shows that the Parent participated in the meeting, expressed concerns, presented recommendations, and those matters were discussed by the PPT, disagreement with the ultimate outcome does not amount to a denial of meaningful parental participation. See Doe v. East Lyme Bd.of Educ., 790 F.3d at 449
  14. The record shows that the Parents fully participated at the PPTs in the planning the Student's 2025-2026 IEPs in April 2025 and in the March 31, 2026 PPT meetings that exited the Student from special education. The Parents then presented outside evaluations and fully participated in the June 2026 IEP referral meeting. The record is clear that the Parents' concerns and private evaluations were considered. The fact that the school team members disagreed with the Parents's position did not amount to a denial of parental participation. See Findings of Fact No. 10, 13,33, 34, 35 and 38.

Final Decision And Order:

  1. The Student does not qualify for special education services.
  2. The Student did not require motor-based speech therapy by a PROMPT-trained therapist to receive a free and appropriate public education.
  3. The Board did not deny Student free and appropriate education from April 2025 to the present by failing to provide such therapy.
  4. The Parents are not entitled to compensatory education.
  5. The Parents are not entitled to compensatory education for missed speech therapy sessions from April 1 through April 23, 2026.
  6. The Parents are not entitled to reimbursement for an independent speech evaluation by Private Evaluator 1.