I. Introduction

This State-level administrative review is being conducted pursuant to an order of remand issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for the limited purpose of determining whether petitioner (the district) violated its child find obligations relative to the student's 2016-17 and 2017-18 school years (see M.B. and J.B. v. Katonah-Lewisboro Union Free Sch. Dist., 2025 WL 2773358 [S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2025]).  Having provided the parties with an opportunity to be heard and upon reexamination of the hearing record of the impartial hearing proceedings, the prior State-level submissions and administrative decisions, as well as the District Court's order of remand, the evidence demonstrates that the district did not violate its child find obligations regarding respondents' (the parents') daughter.

II. Overview—Administrative Procedures

This proceeding initially arose under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) and Article 89 of the New York State Education Law.

When a student in New York is eligible for special education services, the IDEA calls for the creation of an individualized education program (IEP), which is delegated to a local Committee on Special Education (CSE) that includes, but is not limited to, parents, teachers, a school psychologist, and a district representative (Educ. Law § 4402; see 20 U.S.C. § 1414[d][1][A]-[B]; 34 CFR 300.320, 300.321; 8 NYCRR 200.3, 200.4[d][2]).  If disputes occur between parents and school districts, incorporated among the procedural protections is the opportunity to engage in mediation, present State complaints, and initiate an impartial due process hearing (20 U.S.C. §§ 1221e-3, 1415[e]-[f]; Educ. Law § 4404[1]; 34 CFR 300.151-300.152, 300.506, 300.511; 8 NYCRR 200.5[h]-[l]).

New York State has implemented a two-tiered system of administrative review to address disputed matters between parents and school districts regarding "any matter relating to the identification, evaluation or educational placement of a student with a disability, or a student suspected of having a disability, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such student" (8 NYCRR 200.5[i][1]; see 20 U.S.C. § 1415[b][6]-[7]; 34 CFR 300.503[a][1]-[2], 300.507[a][1]).  First, after an opportunity to engage in a resolution process, the parties appear at an impartial hearing conducted at the local level before an IHO (Educ. Law § 4404[1][a]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j]).  An impartial hearing officer (IHO) typically conducts a trial-type hearing regarding the matters in dispute in which the parties have the right to be accompanied and advised by counsel and certain other individuals with special knowledge or training; present evidence and confront, cross-examine, and compel the attendance of witnesses; prohibit the introduction of any evidence at the hearing that has not been disclosed five business days before the hearing; and obtain a verbatim record of the proceeding (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][2][A], [h][1]-[3]; 34 CFR 300.512[a][1]-[4]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][3][v], [vii], [xii]).  The IHO must render and transmit a final written decision in the matter to the parties not later than 45 days after the expiration period or adjusted period for the resolution process (34 CFR 300.510[b][2], [c], 300.515[a]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][5]).  A party may seek a specific extension of time of the 45-day timeline, which the IHO may grant in accordance with State and federal regulations (34 CFR 300.515[c]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][5]).  The decision of the IHO is binding upon both parties unless appealed (Educ. Law § 4404[1]).

A party aggrieved by the decision of an IHO may subsequently appeal to a State Review Officer (SRO) (Educ. Law § 4404[2]; see 20 U.S.C. § 1415[g][1]; 34 CFR 300.514[b][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[k]).  The appealing party or parties must identify the findings, conclusions, and orders of the IHO with which they disagree and indicate the relief that they would like the SRO to grant (8 NYCRR 279.4).  The opposing party is entitled to respond to an appeal or cross-appeal in an answer (8 NYCRR 279.5).  The SRO conducts an impartial review of the IHO's findings, conclusions, and decision and is required to examine the entire hearing record; ensure that the procedures at the hearing were consistent with the requirements of due process; seek additional evidence if necessary; and render an independent decision based upon the hearing record (34 CFR 300.514[b][2]; 8 NYCRR 279.12[a]).  The SRO must ensure that a final decision is reached in the review and that a copy of the decision is mailed to each of the parties not later than 30 days after the receipt of a request for a review, except that a party may seek a specific extension of time of the 30-day timeline, which the SRO may grant in accordance with State and federal regulations (34 CFR 300.515[b], [c]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[k][2]).

III. Facts and Procedural History

The detailed facts regarding the student's educational history and the prior procedural history of this case at the school district and administrative hearing levels regarding whether the district offered the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23 school years were set forth in Application of the Board of Education, Appeal No. 23-209.  The parties' familiarity with this background is presumed; however, for purposes of context, some facts and procedural history with emphasis regarding the 2016-17 and 2017-18 school years and the District Court action are set forth below.

The student was enrolled in the district during the 2016-17 school year (kindergarten) during which the district provided the student with support for math and reading through response to intervention (RtI) tier 2 (Parent Ex. NN ¶ 3; Dist. Ex. 11 at p. 4).  During the 2017-18 school year (first grade), after advancing through the district's RtI tiers 2 and 3, the student was referred by the parents, evaluated, and found eligible for special education as a student with a learning disability during a June 13, 2018 CSE meeting (see Parent Exs. F; G; NN ¶¶ 4, 5, 8, 11-13; Dist. Ex. 6 at pp. 1, 3).  The June 2018 CSE recommended the student attend three 45-minute sessions per week of 5:1 resource room and two 30-minute sessions per week of 5:1 resource room, receive two 30-minute sessions per week of direct consultant teacher services, and be offered the following supplementary aides/program modifications/accommodations: clarification of directions, pair visual and auditory supports, additional time for assignments, use of graphic organizer for writing assignments, directions and tasks broken into smaller components, and check for understanding (Dist. Ex. 6 at p. 8).  The June 2018 CSE deferred the decision of whether to provide the student with a 12-month program "[p]ending [r]eview" and the IEP reflected a projected implementation date of September 5, 2018 (id. at pp. 1, 3, 9).[1]

By due process complaint notice dated February 3, 2021, the parents alleged that the district denied the student a FAPE for the 2019-20 and 2020-21 school years (see IHO Ex. VII).  On March 7, 2022, the parents filed an amended due process complaint notice alleging that the district also denied the student a FAPE for the 2021-22 school year in addition to the 2019-20 and 2020-21 school years (see IHO Ex. VIII).  On August 21, 2022, the parents filed a second amended due process complaint notice alleging that the district denied the student a FAPE for the 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23 school years and requesting an order directing the district to fund the student's tuition at the Windward School (Windward) for those school years (see Parent Ex. NN).  Regarding the 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23 school years, the parents claimed that the district failed to test the student for dyslexia and failed to conduct a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) (id. at p. 25).  The parents asserted the district used inappropriate instructional methodologies and failed to train staff to address the student's needs (id. at pp. 25-26).[2]

A six-day impartial hearing was held before an IHO and, afterwards, the parties submitted closing briefs (IHO Decision at p. 4).  The parents alleged in their closing brief, among other allegations, that the district had failed to identify the student's language-based learning disability "in a timely manner," and asserted that "the [d]istrict had continued the child-find violation for two years" (IHO VI at p. 27).  The parents argued that "[b]y delaying the proper identification and classification of this student with a disability, the [d]istrict violated 8 NYCRR §200.2(a)(2)(c)'s state-based child-find requirement as well as the federal child-find provisions in 34 C.F.R. § 300.11 and 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(3)" (id.).

Following the receipt of the parties' closing briefs, the IHO issued a decision, dated August 31, 2023, which found that the district denied the student a FAPE for the 2019-20 and 2020-21 school years and directed the district to reimburse the parents for the student's tuition at Windward for those two school years (IHO Decision at p. 34).  The IHO held that the district offered the student a FAPE for the 2021-22 and 2022-23 school years and denied relief for those school years (id.).

The IHO noted in her decision that:

The [p]arents also asserted a Child Find claim in their Closing Brief among other claims asserting procedural errors on the part of the [d]istrict . . . As I have found . . . that the [d]istrict failed to provide a FAPE on substantive grounds for the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 school years, I do not address the [p]arents' procedural claims for those years.  For procedural claims relating to the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 school years . . . I FIND them to be without merit"

(IHO Decision at p. 11 fn. 9 [emphasis in original]).

In a State-level administrative appeal from the August 2023 IHO decision, the district argued that the IHO erred in determining that it failed to offer the student a FAPE for the 2019-20 and 2020-21 school years (see Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 23-209).  The parents cross-appealed the IHO's determination which denied their request to be reimbursed for the student's tuition costs at Windward for the 2021-22 and 2022-23 school years (id.).  On appeal, neither party discussed the alleged child find violation and it was not addressed in the November 9, 2023 SRO decision, which found that the district offered the student a FAPE for the 2019-20 and 2020-21 school years and reversed the IHO's order for tuition reimbursement for those school years (see id.).

The parents sought judicial review of the November 9, 2023 SRO decision in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (see M.B., 2025 WL 2773358).  Subsequently, both parties moved for summary judgment (id.).  In a decision dated September 25, 2025, the District Court denied those portions of the parents' motion seeking summary judgment on their request for tuition reimbursement for the 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 school years and granted the district's motion for summary judgment except that the District Court remanded the issue of whether the district violated its child find obligations for the student's 2016-17 and 2017-18 school years to the SRO (id.).

IV. Arguments on Remand

Upon filing the order of remand and because the parties did not previously address child find during Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 23-209, in a letter dated October 9, 2025, the parties were offered an opportunity to be heard by submitting their respective positions regarding the remanded child find issue.  Each party timely submitted a supplemental written statement.

The district argues that the remanded child find issue should be denied without further development of the hearing record because there no longer remains an available remedy and the parents never alleged a child find violation in their prior due process complaint notices nor sought any relief for the district's alleged failure to evaluate the student for special education services before June 2018.  Regardless, according to the district, the student is no longer classified as a student with a disability and has made such significant progress that compensatory education is not a proper remedy.  The district requests that if the SRO addresses the substance of the remanded child find issue that the SRO allow the district to supplement the hearing record with information regarding the 2016-17 and 2017-18 school years.

In the parents' supplemental brief, they argue that the district was aware of the student's significant reading learning disability during the 2016-17 school year but failed to evaluate the student or develop an IEP until the end of the 2017-18 school year, thereby denying her special education services during a critical period of literacy development.  The parents assert that the student suffered harm based on the district's failure to meet its affirmative child find obligations which resulted in the district having denied the student a FAPE.  The parents assert that in addition to the district's prolonged failure to timely evaluate the student for the suspected disability of dyslexia , the district also failed to conduct a functional behavioral analysis (FBA).[3]  The parents also request that if the undersigned determines that there is not enough evidence in the hearing record to determine the alleged child find violation, that the SRO remand the matter to the IHO to determine if additional evidence is required.  The parents seek relief in the form of tuition reimbursement and attorney's fees.

V. Discussion

In remanding this matter, the District Court found that neither the IHO nor the SRO considered the merits of the parents' child find allegations relevant to the student's 2016-17 and 2017-18 school years (M.B., 2025 WL 2773358, at *42). I decline the district's request to simply dismiss the issue, which was explicitly remanded for the undersigned's consideration by the District Court.

A. Child Find

The purpose of the "child find" provisions of the IDEA are to identify, locate, and evaluate students who are suspected of being a student with a disability and thereby may be in need of special education and related services, but for whom no determination of eligibility as a student with a disability has been made (see Handberry v. Thompson, 446 F.3d 335, 347-48 [2d Cir. 2006]; E.T. v. Bd. of Educ. of Pine Bush Cent. Sch. Dist., 2012 WL 5936537, at *11 [S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2012]; A.P. v. Woodstock Bd. of Educ., 572 F. Supp. 2d 221, 225 [D. Conn. 2008], aff'd, 370 Fed. App'x 202 [2d Cir. Mar. 23, 2010]; see also 20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][3][A]; 34 CFR 300.111; 8 NYCRR 200.2[a][1], [7]).  The IDEA places an ongoing, affirmative duty on State and local educational agencies to identify, locate, and evaluate students with disabilities residing in the State "to ensure that they receive needed special education services" (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][3]; 34 CFR 300.111[a][1][i]; Forest Grove v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230, 245 [2009]; K.B. v. Katonah Lewisboro Union Free Sch. Dist., 2019 WL 5553292, at *7 [S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2019], aff'd, 2021 WL 745890 [2d Cir. Feb. 26, 2021]; E.T., 2012 WL 5936537, at *11; see 20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][A][ii]; see also 8 NYCRR 200.2[a][1], [7]; New Paltz Cent. Sch. Dist. v. St. Pierre, 307 F. Supp. 2d 394, 400 n.13 [N.D.N.Y. 2004]).  The "child find" requirements apply to "children who are suspected of being a child with a disability . . . and in need of special education, even though they are advancing from grade to grade" (34 CFR 300.111[c][1]; see 8 NYCRR 200.2[a][1], [7]; D.K. v. Abington Sch. Dist., 696 F.3d 233, 249 [3d Cir. 2012]; J.S. v. Scarsdale Union Free Sch. Dist., 826 F. Supp. 2d 635, 660 [S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2011]).  To satisfy the requirements, a board of education must have procedures in place that will enable it to identify, locate, and evaluate such children (34 CFR 300.111[a][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.2[a][1], [7]).

Because the child find obligation is an affirmative one, the IDEA does not require parents to request that the district evaluate their child (see Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 518 [D.C. Cir. 2005] [noting that "[s]chool districts may not ignore disabled students' needs, nor may they await parental demands before providing special instruction"]; see also Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 11-153; Application of a Student Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal Nos. 11-092 & 11-094).  A district's child find duty is triggered when there is "reason to suspect a disability and reason to suspect that special education services may be needed to address that disability" (J.S., 826 F. Supp. 2d at 660; New Paltz Cent. Sch. Dist., 307 F. Supp. 2d at 400 n.13, quoting Dep't of Educ., State of Hawaii v. Cari Rae S., 158 F. Supp. 2d 1190, 1194 [D. Haw. 2001]).  To support a finding that a child find violation has occurred, school officials must have overlooked clear signs of disability and been negligent in failing to order testing, or have no rational justification for deciding not to evaluate the student (Mr. P v. W. Hartford Bd. of Educ., 885 F.3d 735, 750 [2d Cir. 2018], quoting Bd. of Educ. of Fayette County v. L.M., 478 F.3d 307, 313 [6th Cir. 2007]; see A.P., 572 F. Supp. 2d at 225).  States are encouraged to develop "effective teaching strategies and positive behavioral interventions to prevent over-identification and to assist students without an automatic default to special education" (Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. v. D.L., 548 F. Supp. 2d 815, 819 [C.D. Cal. 2008], citing 20 U.S.C. § 1400[c][5]).

Additionally, a school district must initiate a referral and promptly request parental consent to evaluate a student to determine if the student needs special education services and programs if a student has not made adequate progress after an appropriate period of time when provided instruction in a school district's RtI program (8 NYCRR 200.4[a]; see 34 CFR 300.309[c]; see also 8 NYCRR 100.2[ii]).

1. Response to Intervention

The district asserts that the "resolution of the child [find] obligation issue is, at this time, a wholly academic exercise for which there is no available remedy" because the student has made such educational progress since 2016-17 and 2017-18 that "compensatory education is not a proper remedy in this case" (Oct. 17, 2025 Written Statement on Remanded Issue at pp. 2-3).  However, because the student participated in the district's RtI programming during the 2016-17 and 2017-18 school years prior to being classified as a student eligible for special education services in June 2018, a discussion of RtI requirements is warranted.

According to the United States Department of Education's Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), "[a] multi-tiered instructional framework such as RTI is a schoolwide approach that addresses the needs of all students, including struggling learners and students with disabilities, and integrates assessment and intervention within a multi-level instructional and behavioral system to maximize student achievement and reduce problem behaviors.[4]  OSEP supports State and local implementation of RTI strategies to ensure that children who are struggling academically and behaviorally are identified early and provided needed interventions in a timely and effective manner" (Letter to Zirkel, 62 IDELR 151 [OSEP 2013]).  Although leaving the details of particular RtI models to the individual states, according to OSEP, the essential components of an RtI framework are:

1. High-quality, evidence-based instruction in general education settings;

2. Screening of all students for academic and behavioral problems;

3. Two or more levels of instruction that are progressively more intense and based on the student's response to instruction; and

4. Progress monitoring of student performance.  In evaluating a particular intervention process, OSEP observed, an individual should assess whether all four of those ingredients are present.

(id.).  RtI timelines and adequate progress issues are left to States or local school districts to establish in accordance with their models because "[t]hese decisions are best left to State and local professionals who have knowledge of the instructional methods used in their schools" (Determining the Existence of a Specific Learning Disability, 71 Fed. Reg. 46,658 [2006]).

The State Education Department has established a regulatory policy framework for RtI that requires school-wide screenings, minimum components of RtI programs, parent notification, and use of RtI in the identification of students with learning disabilities (8 NYCRR 100.2[ii]).  State regulation provides that a school district's process to determine if a student responds to scientific, research-based instruction shall include the application of information about the student's response to intervention to make educational decisions about changes in the student's goals, instruction, services, and the decision to make a referral for special education programs or services (8 NYCRR 100.2[ii][1][v]).  State regulation further mandates that "[a] school district shall select and define the specific structure and components of the [RtI] program, including, but not limited to, the criteria for determining the levels and types of intervention to be provided to students, the amount and nature of student performance data to be collected and the manner and frequency for progress monitoring" and to set forth the implementation of its RtI process in a written policy (8 NYCRR 100.2[ii][2]; see 8 NYCRR 200.2[b][7]).

The district did not offer its RtI policy in effect during the 2016-17 through 2017-18 school years as evidence during the impartial hearing.  However, details regarding the implementation of RtI with the student was entered into the hearing record and there is sufficient evidence in the hearing record regarding the student's progression through the district's tiered RtI support to reach a determination as to whether the district's use of RtI for the 2016-17 and 2017-18 school years resulted in a violation of the IDEA's child find obligation.

a. 2016-17 School Year

The evidence in the hearing record shows that for the 2016-17 school year, although the student exhibited some delays, she was also younger than most of her classmates, and the district expected that with the additional support provided to her through RtI tier 2, the student would "catch up and there wouldn't be any issues" (Tr. pp. 639-40; Parent Ex. NN ¶¶ 2, 3; Dist. Exs. 6 at p. 2; 11 at p. 4).  The student's mother testified that during the 2016-17 school year the parents were "reassured by the classroom teacher that [the student's delays] w[ere] not uncommon to see with children that were young for entering school" and that "this was nothing to really worry about and not uncommon to see the delay of this type because [the student] was delayed going into kindergarten. So we should wait and see and trust the system to do its thing, which at that point, we were pretty content to do" (Tr. p. 640).  The student's mother testified that the student "ended kindergarten still with RTI . . . and [the teachers] suspected that she would be able to kind of close whatever gap there was between the RTI support and the general ed[ucation] going into first grade" (Tr. p. 642).  Additionally, the IEP reflects that with the RtI support the student received in kindergarten she "was showing growth" (Dist. Ex. 6 at p. 2).  The hearing record indicates that, regarding the 2016-17 school year, the district did not overlook clear signs of disability, nor was the district negligent in failing to conduct an evaluation for special education; rather the district was aware of the student's difficulties and implemented RtI tier 2 supports resulting in "growth," and district staff and the parents decided to give the student more time to develop her skills.  As such, the district did not violate its child find obligations for the 2016-17 school year.

b. 2017-18 School Year

The parents alleged that early in the 2017-18 school year the student began "complaining about stomach aches and headaches as part of a new resistance to school" (Parent Ex. NN ¶ 4).  The parents reported that starting in the 2017-18 school year, the student began displaying concerning behavior "at home related to doing homework" including "[c]rying, temper tantrums, yelling, refusing to do work, [and] calling herself stupid" (Dist. Ex. 11 at p. 3).  The district recommended that the student continue with RtI tier 2 at the beginning of the 2017-18 school year (Parent Ex. NN ¶¶ 4, 5; Dist. Ex. 18 at p. 1).

Between October 10, 2017 and January 31, 2018, the district provided the student with four 25-minute sessions per week of small group RtI tier 2 (Parent Ex. G at p. 5).  The student's January 31, 2018 winter progress report stated that "[t]he building RTI Committee/RTI Data Team has indicated that the student is at risk for not achieving proficiency levels based on multiple measures including [d]istrict benchmarks, classroom performance, progress notes, report card grades and informal assessments in [English language arts] ELA" (id.).  The winter report noted that although demonstrating growth in her early reading skills, the student's "progress ha[d] been slow" and that "[a]t this time, we will be increasing [student]'s ELA support to a Tier 3 service" (id. at p. 6).  The student attended four 45-minute sessions per week of small group Tier 3 RtI instruction from February 1, 2018 through June 14, 2018 (id. at p. 1).

On March 15, 2018, the student's mother signed a consent form for the district to conduct an initial CSE evaluation of the student (Dist. Ex. 7).[5]  With the parents' input, the district prepared a social history dated March 15, 2018, documenting the student's "trouble identifying letters and numbers," her recent behavioral issues surrounding school work, and a family history of dyslexia (Dist. Ex. 11 at pp. 3, 4).

In April and May 2018, the district evaluated the student and the psychological evaluation report indicated that "[r]ecently, [the student] has begun to resist her school work at home" and that "[a]cademically, [the student] has struggled with reading fluency, site [sic] words, and decoding" (Dist. Ex. 19 at p. 1).  On April 23, 2018, the district performed a classroom observation and noted that the student spelled "[q]uestion mark" as "cwechtimfc" and that she did not appear to be decoding the text of books she was looking at (Dist. Ex. 12 at p. 1).  The district also conduced the student's educational evaluation on April 23, 2018, at which time the Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Achievement was administered (Dist. Ex. 13 at p. 1).  The student achieved scores within the average range on letter-word identification and passage comprehension subtests, with the evaluator noting that the "student sounded out words phonetically while decoding" and "[r]eversals occurred for letters b & d while decoding dook, book and bentist, dentist" (id. at pp. 1, 2).  The student's teacher issued a report dated May 8, 2018, documenting that the student had "been receiving RTI services since the beginning of the school year, and the services were increased mid-year when she was not making sufficient progress," noting that the student "continue[d] to have some letter and number reversals" (Dist. Ex. 18 at p. 1).  On May 10, 2018, the district evaluated the student's reading by administering the Gray Oral Reading Test, noting that the student's "reading rate score fell in the poor range," and that her accuracy, fluency, comprehension, and overall reading index scores were in the below average range (Dist. Ex. 14 at p. 1).

On or around June 5, 2018, the district issued the student's report card for the 2017-18 school year reflecting that as of the third term of the school year the student "[r]equire[d] [t]eacher [s]upport" in the areas of reading, writing and math (Dist. Ex. 15).  A June 11, 2018 spring progress report stated that "[a]t this time, [the student] will exit RTI services in ELA as she will be receiving academic support through special education" (Parent Ex. G at p. 2).

As discussed in more detail above, a CSE convened on June 13, 2018, determined that the student was eligible for special education services as a student with a learning disability, and recommended a special education program with an implementation date of September 5, 2018 (Dist. Ex. 6 at pp. 1, 3).  On June 18, 2018, the student's mother signed a consent for the district to perform an OT evaluation (Dist. Ex. 16).[6]

Based on the evidence in the hearing record, the district did not violate its child find obligations for the 2017-18 school year because it was permissible for the district to continue to advance the student through RtI tiers prior to conducting a CSE evaluation (see Parent Ex. G).  The district provided the student with RtI tier 2 instruction from the beginning of the school year until January 25, 2018 in order to assess whether the RtI tier 2 instruction would sufficiently address the student's delays (id. at pp. 5-6).  When it became apparent that the student's progress was "slow," the district elevated the student from RtI tier 2 to RtI tier 3 on February 1, 2018 to determine whether the increased RtI services would effectively address the student's learning delays (id. at pp. 1, 6).  The hearing record reflects that the district was documenting the student's delays and attempting to address them with increasing RtI services (id. at pp. 1-6).  Once the parents requested that the student be evaluated for special education eligibility, the district proceeded to evaluate the student and convene a CSE that ultimately found the student eligible for services as a student with a learning disability (Tr. p. 647; Dist. Ex. 6).

As noted above, the student in this case was younger than most of her classmates and she was within the kindergarten through second grade range.  That age range and grade levels is where reading skills of many students develop at varying paces and in which some students require more differentiated instruction than others.  This is not a case in which there is evidence that the parent insisted that the district forego the RtI process during the early and middle portion of the 2017-18 school year and that student be referred to the CSE instead.  Accordingly, I do not find that the district unreasonably delayed referral to the CSE while the student was proceeding  though the RtI tiers.   Despite the student's progression through RtI tiers 2 and 3 prior to the parent's consent for a CSE evaluation on March 15, 2018, even if the undersigned determined that there was a child find violation during some narrow window of the 2017-18 school year, relief for such a violation would not be appropriate at this juncture since it would not constitute a gross denial of a FAPE.[7]  The hearing record reflects that the parents were already planning on the student returning to the district attending a district school for the 2023-24 school year (Tr. pp. 678-80).  According to the district, as of October 17, 2025, the student was "no longer classified as a student with a disability under the IDEA" and had made such educational progress since the 2016-17 and 2017-18 school years that "compensatory education is not a proper remedy in this case" (Oct. 17, 2025 Written Statement on Remanded Issue at p. 3).  I am inclined to agree that the student's hard-earned progress in reading and writing would negate any need for an award of compensatory education at this juncture.  Based on the student no longer being in need of special education services, I would not have ordered relief even if the hearing record reflected that there was a child find violation during kindergarten and first grade, which was not the case in this matter.

VI. Conclusion

For the reasons described above, I find that the district did not violate its child find obligations for the 2016-17 or 2017-18 school years and that, in the alternative, equitable relief would not be warranted at this juncture.  Accordingly, the necessary inquiry is at an end.