PENNSYLVANIA SPECIAL EDUCATION DUE PROCESS
FINAL DECISION AND ORDER
ODR No. 32541-25-26
This is a redacted version of the original decision. Select details have been removed from the decision to preserve the anonymity of the student. The redactions do not affect the substance of the document.
CLOSED HEARING
Child’s Name: A.G.
Date of Birth: [redacted]
Parent: [redacted]
Local Educational Agency: Belle Vernon Area School District 270 Crest Avenue Belle Vernon, PA 15012
Counsel for Parent: Aimee Rankin, Esquire 1575 McFarland Road – Suite 301 Pittsburgh, PA 15216
Counsel for LEA: Andrew Evankovich, Esquire 1500 Ardmore Boulevard – Suite 506 Pittsburgh, PA 15221
Hearing Officer: Michael J. McElligott, Esquire
Date of Decision: 03/30/2026
Introduction
This special education due process hearing concerns the educational rights of A.G. (“student”), a student who attends school in the Belle Vernon Area School District (“District”).[1] The student currently qualifies under the terms of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Improvement Act of 2004 (“IDEA”)[2] as a student with an intellectual disability.
The parties agree that the student qualifies for special education programming through age 22. In June of 2026, the student will participate in graduation ceremonies with classmates at the District. Thereafter, the student will continue programming in the 2026-2027 school year under the auspices of IDEA.
The parties disagree about the student’s program and placement for the upcoming 2026-2027 school year. The student’s parent filed the complaint which led to these proceedings.[3] The parent claims that the District’s proposed program and placement, which includes a part-time District-based program and a part-time vocational program at a local vocational-technical school (“Vo-Tech”), are inappropriate for the student. Parent seeks a hearing officer order to place the student in a specialized post-secondary academic-studies/vocational program for students with intellectual disabilities, autism, developmental delays, or other disability profiles that differ from neuro-typical peers, offered at a local college (“College Program”). The District counters that its proposed program and placement are appropriate.
For reasons set forth below, I find in favor of the parent and student.
Issues
What is the appropriate program and placement for the student in the 2026-2027 school year?
Findings of Fact
All evidence of record was reviewed. The citation to any exhibit or aspect of testimony is to be viewed as the necessary and probative evidence in the mind of the hearing officer.
1. The student attends District schools, currently at the District high school. (Parent Exhibit [“P”]-1, P-2; School District Exhibit [“S”]-14; Notes of Testimony [“NT”] at 56-173).
2. In the 2022-2023 school year, the student’s [redacted] grade year [redacted] at the District high school, the student’s received special education programming in a life skills setting. (NT at 56-173, 405-449).
2023-2024 / [redacted] grade
3. In January 2024, mid-way through the student’s [redacted] grade year, the student was re-evaluated by the District as part of the student’s biennial re-evaluation process. (P-2).
4. The student was identified as eligible under IDEA as a student with an intellectual disability and speech and language (“S&L”) impairment. (P-2).
5. The January 2024 re-evaluation report (“RR”) noted that the student was receiving a functional curriculum in math and English and was included in general education classes in other academic areas, where the student “needs minimal accommodations to be successful” and is “very independent and able to navigate (the) schedule and environment without adult support.” (P-2 at pages 2, 11).
6. In the January 2024 RR, parent’s input indicated that the student “is interested in pursuing (post-)secondary studies but will need help with education, employment, (Office of Vocational Rehabilitation) and community supports. Future educational options could include on-the-job training, adult education classes, vocational technical school and/or community college. Currently, (the student) has shown interest in culinary / baking and working with children”. (P-2 at page 3).
7. In the January 2024 RR, teacher recommendation included the following: The student should “have opportunities for vocational programming such as a possibility of participating in” vocational-technical programming, career exploration lab, job shadowing, and/or job coaching. (P-2 at page 9).
8. In January 2024, the student’s individualized education program (“IEP”) was revised in light of the January 2024 RR. (P-3).
9. The January 2024 IEP included three goals, one each in S&L, reading comprehension, and functional mathematics. (P-3).
10. The January 2024 IEP contained parental concerns regarding the student’s transition programming, adopted from the January 2024 RR. (P-3 at page 20).
11. The January 2024 IEP included results from an interest survey, administered in November 2023. (P-3 at page 18).
12. Transition goals in the January 2024 IEP indicated that the student’s post-secondary education goal included attending college after graduation, with an interest in culinary arts and child care. The student’s employment goal included competitive employment in those areas. The student’s independent living goal indicated that the student sought to live with family, friends, or a roommate. (P-3 at pages 22-25).[4]
13. The January 2024 IEP indicated that the student would tour programs at the Vo-Tech. (P-3 at page 22).
14. In [redacted] grade, the student’s IEP team considered potential placement with the Vo-Tech, the vocational-technical school where the District is part of the consortium of school districts which supports the Vo-Tech and where a District representative serves as a member of the joint operating committee which governs the Vo-Tech. (NT at 178-264, 405-449, 522-583).
15. The student visited the Vo-Tech, but the program was deemed not to be appropriate, given the class sizes at the Vo-Tech and the length of transportation time. (NT 56-173, 405-449).
16. Another nearby vocational-technical program was considered, especially because of its closer proximity, but that program could not accept an application for the student because that vocational-technical program did not have a slot available (all slots being filled by students who were members of the consortium school districts that supported that vocational-technical program). (NT 56-173, 405-449).
17. Given strengths and success in regular education settings, in the final quarter of the [redacted] grade year, the student was placed in learning support instead of life skills on a trial basis. (NT at 405-449).
2024-2025 / [redacted] Grade
18. In the 2024-2025 school year, the student’s [redacted] grade year, given the student’s continued success in regular education settings and success in the trial period, the student’s support setting was changed from life skills to learning support. (P-3 at page 3; NT at 56-173, 178-264, 405-449, 657-679).
19. In December 2024, the student completed a transition survey. The student indicated post-secondary plans that included continuing education, with studies in the field of animal care (boarding) and coffee shop/restaurant/culinary. The transition survey indicated that the Vo-Tech was a possible place for studies. (P-23 at pages 5-12).
20. In January 2025, the student was re-evaluated to determine the student’s needs in S&L. The January 2025 RR recommended that the student no longer qualified for S&L programming, and the student’s multi-disciplinary team agreed. The student’s identification status as a student eligible under IDEA was solely as a student with an intellectual disability. (School District Exhibit [“S”]-14).
21. In January 2025, the student’s IEP was revised in light of the January 2025 RR. (P-5).
22. The January 2025 IEP included two goals, one each in reading comprehension and functional mathematics. (P-5).
23. In the January 2025 IEP, the special education teacher responsible for pre-vocational education reported that “(The student) has shown great improvement in…independence. While (the student) still has access to the life skills program, (the student) is thriving in the Learning Support placement. (The student) should focus on transition goals for…senior year”. (P-5 at page 8).
24. In January 2025 IEP included the information from the December 2024 transition survey. (P-5 at pages 13-14; P-23 at pages 5-12).
25. In January 2025 IEP included parental input on transition planning and post-secondary employment: “(The student) has shown interest in culinary/baking and working with children and with a veterinarian”. (P-5 at pages 14).
26. Transition goals in the January 2025 IEP indicated that the student’s post-secondary education goal included “attending college, exploring culinary”. The student’s employment goal included competitive employment in the culinary field, a coffee shop, animal care, or child care. (P-5 at pages 16-17).
27. The January 2025 IEP indicated that the student would consider programs at the Vo-Tech. (P-5 at page 16).
28. Given the class size and transportation issues related to programming at the Vo-Tech, the student did not re-visit the programming in [redacted] grade. The nearby vocational-technical program was considered again, but, as in the [redacted] grade year, that program did not have a slot available. (NT 56-173, 405-449).
29. In January 2025, as part of the IEP team’s consideration of potential post-secondary programs, the student’s special education teacher sent information about various post-secondary programs run by local colleges and universities which combined academic-studies with vocational exploration/training. The College Program was listed among these programs. (P-26 at pages 19-21; NT at 56-173, 405-449).
30. The student would not attend any program that required a residential component, but the parent and student toured other post-secondary programs at local colleges and universities, but not the College Program. (P-26 at pages 19-21; NT at 56-173).
2025-2026 / [redacted] Grade
31. In September 2025, the parent and student toured the College Program. (NT at 56-173, 278-399).
32. The tour involved the parent and student, and included an interview of the student by the College Program’s staff. The College Program determined that the student would be an appropriate fit. As part of the College Program’s process, the District was contacted by the College Program to inform the District that a student from the District was visiting the College Program. (NT at 56-173, 178-264, 278-399).
33. After the tour, the parent and student became interested in having the student attend the College Program for the student’s post-secondary academic-studies/vocational-education programming. (NT at 56-173).
34. In October 2025, the student completed a transition survey. The student indicated post-secondary plans that included continuing education, with studies in the culinary field. The transition survey indicated that the College Program and the Vo-Tech were possible places for studies, although the survey also indicated that the student was not interested in the Vo-Tech. The transition survey indicated that dog sitting was a potential employment interest. (P-23 at pages 1-4).
35. In early November 2025, the student spent the day alone at the College Program, another aspect of the process for consideration by the College Program. The College Program continued to consider the student a good fit. (NT at 278-399).
36. In early November 2025, the day after the student’s solo tour and engagement with the College Program, the parent emailed the student’s special education case manager about scheduling an IEP meeting to discuss post-secondary transition planning, to include discussion of applying to the College Program. (S-24).
37. In mid-November 2025, the student’s IEP team met to discuss post-secondary transition planning. (P-7).
38. At the November 2025 IEP meeting, the student’s IEP team discussed programming options for post-secondary study in the 2026-2027 school year. The parent and District did not agree on their respective, preferred options. (P-8 at pages 18-19; NT at 56-173, 178-264, 455-513).
39. In mid-December 2025, the student’s IEP team met again. (P-8; NT at 56-173, 455-513).
40. The parent thought the meeting would include the IEP team’s continuing consideration of potential options for post-secondary programming. The meeting did not include any discussion of post-secondary programming. Instead, the IEP meeting focused solely on updating present levels of academic performance in mathematics and revising the student’s math goal. (P-8; NT at 56-173, 455-513).
41. In the days after the December 2025 IEP meeting, the District issued a notice of recommended educational placement (“NOREP”). (P-9).
42. The December 2025 NOREP indicated that the NOREP was issued “To outline the educational opportunities available to (the student) as provided by the (District) that will be available to (the student) from graduation through the age of 22”. (P-9 at page 1).
43. The December 2025 NOREP indicated that the District was proposing post-graduation programming that included (1) District-based academic programming, (2) access to vocational programming at the Vo-Tech, (3) access to a District-based programming that would assess and develop functional vocational competencies, and (4) access to community-based work experiences. (P-9 at page 2).
44. The December 2025 NOREP indicated that the District was rejecting the College Program as a potential educational placement because it felt the District’s proposed program and placement were appropriate. (P-9 at page 2).
45. The parties were unable to resolve the dispute between themselves, and, in early February 2026, the parent filed the complaint which led to these proceedings. The District filed a response to the complaint. (Hearing Officer Exhibit (“HO”) – 1 – Complaint, HO-2 – Response to the Complaint).
46. After the filing of the complaint, the matter was scheduled for hearing over three hearing sessions in late April and early May 2026. (HO-3 – April/May Hearing Notices).
47. Counsel and the hearing officer collaborated about hearing planning for the April/May 2026 sessions, and counsel for the District indicated that it would engage with the College Program to the extent that it needed to be a part of the application process.
48. In late February 2026, the parent and student formally applied to the College Program. (P-11).
49. Part of the application process for the College Program required both the family and the sponsoring school district to sign an Acknowledgement (“Acknowledgement”) of Scope of Services for the College Program (“Scope of Services”). (P-11 at pages 15, 16, 21; NT at 278-399).
50. The Scope of Services provides various details about the College Program, including that the student will generally support the “tenants and polices” of the College Program. It also includes specific information about potential research generated by the College Program, student status at the college, student health care, campus engagement and services, abiding by the college code of student conduct, and consent to share records/information between college offices and departments. (P-11 at page 15).
51. The Scope of Services also includes “payment of tuition and transportation costs”. (P-11 at page 15).
52. The Acknowledgement must be signed by a parent, the applying student, and a school district representative. The parent and student signed the Acknowledgement; the District declined to sign the Acknowledgement. (P-11 at page 15).
53. In early March 2026, upon learning that the District would not sign the Acknowledgement, parent’s counsel contacted the hearing officer to indicate that the application for the College Program was incomplete without the District being a signatory to the Acknowledgement. Parent filed a motion to compel the District to sign the Acknowledgement. For reference, the motion included a copy of the Scope of Services and a blank Acknowledgement. (HO-4 – Motion).
54. The hearing officer declined to grant the motion, indicating to counsel that the District withheld a signature on the Acknowledgment in good faith, as it might bind the District in a way that mooted its position in the hearing process.
55. The hearing officer accelerated the scheduling of hearing sessions so that the evidentiary sessions could be completed by March 31, 2026, which was the deadline for the student’s consideration by the College Program. (NT at 278-399).[5]
56. The hearing sessions were scheduled for March 19th, 23rd, and 26th. (HO-5 – March Hearing Notices).
Comparison of College Program & Vo-Tech/District Programming[6]
57. The College Program is designed for post-secondary academic-studies/vocational-education for students with intellectual disabilities and developmental delays. The program centers on four “pillars”: academics, vocational training, activities of daily living/life management, and social skills, with coursework in each area every semester over the three years of the College Program. (P-12; NT at 278-399).
58. The Vo-Tech is a geographically-oriented, school-district-consortium career and vocational school offering 19 programs of study, across a wide variety of vocational fields. (P-17, P-18; S-22; NT at 522-583).
59. The District provides, as it has for the student in 9th through 12th grades, special education classes, regular education classes, and related services for special education students.
60. Length of Program. The College Program is a 3-year program. The Vo-Tech programming can be 3 or 4 years, depending on each participating school district’s arrangements with the Vo-Tech. Ostensibly, the student would receive District programming through age 22. (NT at 278-399, 522-583).
61. Structure of Day. The College Program is a full-day program, five days per week. The District/Vo-Tech program would entail a half-day program at each location, mornings at the Vo-Tech and afternoons at the District. (NT at 278-399, 455-513, 522-583).
62. Transportation. The District would provide transportation for any program/placement in the 2026-2027 school year. Transportation would be twice per day for the College Program (to and from the college campus); transportation would be three times per day for the Vo-Tech (to the Vo-Tech, from the Vo-Tech to the District, from the District). (NT at 278-399, 522-583).
63. Class Size & Composition. The College Program is a cohort model where the student would be one of eight students in the College Program, all with IEPs, attending classes in the College Program curriculum over all three years. The Vo-Tech has 1400 total students; approximately 70 students are in the culinary program. Approximately 30% of students at the Vo-Tech have IEPs; approximately 30 of the 70 students in the culinary program have IEPs. (NT at 278-399, 522-583).
64. Age of Students. The student’s cohort at the College Program would be students roughly 18-22 years old, with a college campus population of same-age peers in their late teens and twenties. The student would attend programming at both the District and the Vo-Tech largely with students 14-18 years old. (NT at 278-399, 522-583).
65. Coursework. The College Program provides coursework each semester in academics (reading and math), vocational skills, independent living, social skills, and study/organizational skills. Coursework at the Vo-Tech is entirely vocational and in regular education. As had been provided previously to the student, classes at the District could be regular education or special education, depending on the student’s IEP. (NT at 278-399, 522-583).
66. Staffing. Staffing at the College Program consists of three special education teachers, a program aide, a vocational specialist, peer job coaches (assisting during vocational experiences), and peer class assistants (assisting during audited college classes). Staffing at the Vo-Tech consists of four workforce education coordinators (who are all certified in special education) assigned to support various programs, a classroom aide in the afternoon culinary class, 1.5 workforce readiness specialists (one full-time, one part-time), and the support of Office of Vocational Rehabilitation support in the field, if the student qualifies. The District would ostensibly provide instruction, modifications, and support in its program as required by the student’s IEP. (NT at 278-399, 522-583).
67. Special Education Case Management. The College Program provides special education case management (drafting IEPs, scheduling IEP meetings, coordinating services, maintaining goal progress-monitoring, serving as the special education point-of-contact) through one of its assigned special education teachers. The Colleged Program case manager coordinates with the special education department of students’ school districts. The workforce education coordinator at the Vo-Tech provides special education liaison duties with students’ school districts but does not provide special education case management. The District would provide special education case management for the student’s program at both the Vo-Tech and the District. (NT at 278-399, 522-583).
68. Regular Education. The College Program allows students to audit college classes, with the support of a peer classroom assistant, who is an undergraduate classmate trained to provide academic support in the audited class. The Vo-Tech program is entirely a regular education program. As had been provided previously to the student, the District program could ostensibly involve regular education classes as part of the student’s program. (P-14; NT at 178-264, 278-399, 522-583).
69. Least Restrictive Environment. The College Program, the Vo-Tech, and the District all provide exposure to regular education students and offer opportunities for extracurricular activities. (NT at 178-264, 278-399, 522-583).
70. Vocational Experiences. The College Program offers vocational experiences in a student’s area of interest or planning as part of the course of study. In the second semester of the first year, students engage in a vocational experience 4 hours per week; in the third and fourth semesters (2nd year), students engage in a vocational experience 9 hours per week; in the fifth and sixth semesters (3rd year), the students engage in a vocational experience 18 hours per week. At the Vo-Tech, students experience work-based opportunities on an ad hoc basis in the second or third year of their programs; co-op opportunities, which involve significant time commitments akin to a part-time job, are available toward the end of a student’s program (sometimes the second year, normally the third year). The District recently implemented a vocational interest, assessment, and competency program but, on this record, that program does not include explicit vocational experiences. (NT at 178-264, 522-583).
71. Vocational Flexibility. The College Program allows for the student to explore varying vocational experiences as part of the program, semester-to-semester. The Vo-Tech allows for students to change vocational program tracks. (NT at 178-264, 522-583).
72. Culinary/Baking. Both the College Program and the Vo-Tech offer programming and vocational experiences in culinary/baking, an identified area of career interest for the student. Included as options for this vocational area are coffee shops, snack takeaways, cafeterias, and outside restaurants and bakeries. Both programs offer explicit certifications in various background and skill areas in culinary/baking. (NT at 178-264, 522-583).
73. Animal Care. The College Program offers vocational experiences in animal care, an identified area of career interest for the student. Included as options for this vocational area are an on-campus animal exploration lab, a horse farm, veterinary care, and pet grooming. The Vo-Tech does not off animal care as a program. (NT at 178-264, 522-583).
74. Child Care. The College Program offers vocational experiences in child care, an identified area of career interest for the student. Included as options for this vocational area are the on-campus animal exploration lab (which hosts exploration field trips for young children) and various preschools. The Vo-Tech does not offer a child care program; it offers an aspiring educators program, geared toward students who wish to pursue professional teaching careers in K-12 public school education. (NT at 178-264, 522-583).
75. Extended School Year. The College Program offers extended school year (“ESY”) programming, which is goal-driven from students’ IEPs and continues the coursework and skill-building which was the focus of each spring semester. The Vo-Tech does not offer ESY programming. The District ostensibly offers ESY programming, but the student’s IEPs, on this record, do not qualify the student for ESY and do not include ESY programming. (P-3, P-5, P-8; NT at 178-264, 522-583).
76. Program Completion. Both the College Program and the Vo-Tech provide students with certificates and/or evidence of program completion and vocational skills. (NT at 178-264, 522-583).
Credibility of Witnesses
All witnesses testified credibly. No one witness’s testimony was accorded materially more weight than the other.
Legal Framework
To assure that a student eligible under IDEA receives a free appropriate public education (34 C.F.R. §300.17; 22 PA Code §14.102(a)(2)(iv)), the child’s special education programming must be reasonably calculated to yield meaningful educational benefit to the student. (Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 187-204 (1982)). ‘Meaningful benefit’ means that a student’s program affords the student the opportunity for significant learning in light of his or her individual needs, not simply de minimis, or minimal, or ‘some’, education progress. The child’s education programming must be appropriately ambitious in light of the child’s strengths and needs, current levels of programming, and goals. (Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas County School District, 580 U.S. 386 (2017); Dunn v. Downingtown Area School District, 904 F.3d 208 (3d Cir. 2018)).
Discussion & Conclusions
Here, the evidence as to both the Vo-Tech and College Program, while not approaching equipoise (see Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (2005); L.E. v. Ramsey Board of Education, 435 F.3d 384 (3d Cir. 2006)), is very similar. But the evidence in the records weighs, in marked and important ways, in favor of the parent and student.
As seen in the fact-finding above, the District’s proposed program and placement, utilizing half-day programs at the Vo-Tech and the District, have many similarities to the College Program. The critical differences, and the basis for finding in favor of the parent and student, are specifically as follows, in the order as those appear in fact-finding:
• Class Size. Since 10th grade as considered by the family and the student’s special education teacher, the size of the classes at the Vo-Tech were a longstanding impediment to the student’s potential enrollment there.
• Students’ Ages. In the College Program, the student would be with same-age peers, both in the cohort and on the college campus—students in their late teens and early twenties. In the Vo-Tech/District program and placement, the student would be largely, if not almost entirely, with younger students, students in their mid-teenage years (14-18). This has implications for the least restrictive environment for the student, especially as the student would approach the end of programming as a near-22-year-old.
• Animal Care. The Vo-Tech does not have animal care as a vocational program or experience. This has been a recognized employment interest of the student, and the College Program allows the student to explore that interest with vocational experiences in animal care.
• Child Care. The Vo-Tech does not have child care as a vocational program or experience. The Vo-Tech does have an aspiring educators program, where students gain experience in K-12 public school settings. This program would lay the groundwork for advanced, credit-based post-secondary study for a bachelors degree in education, which is likely beyond the student’s intellectual ability. The student’s recognized interest in child care is well-suited to the preschool/young-child focus of multiple vocational experiences available at the College Program.
• ESY. The Vo-Tech does not offer ESY programming, and this record does not support a finding that the District has ever offered ESY programming. Perhaps the student does not require ESY programming, although the testimony of the College Program administrator is persuasive that the disability profiles of students in the College Program largely provide a basis for the need for ESY programming. The College Program is prepared to offer ESY programming, and explicitly gathers data following the winter break to gauge a student’s individual need (or lack thereof) for ESY programming. Taken all together, the College Program’s approach to ESY programming in light of the record of ESY programming (or lack thereof) at the District weighs in favor of the parent and student.
Accordingly, the order below will direct that the student’s program and placement for the 2026-2027 school year shall be at the College Program.
Doubtless, the result of this decision will be a disappointment to the District. But where the parent and student have met their burden of persuasion by the evidence having weighed in their favor, this result must follow.
ORDER
In accord with the findings of fact and conclusions of law as set forth above, the student’s placement for the 2026-2027 school year shall be the academic-studies/vocational program at the local 4-year college, referred to above in the decision as the College Program.
To the extent that the College Program requires a near-immediate indication about the student’s application status, this order shall serve as authority for that application to be considered as the program and placement for the student in the 2026-2027 school year, including the obligation for all tuition and transportation to be provided by the Belle Vernon Area School District for the student’s attendance at the College Program (and as required as part of the College Program application at pages 16 and/or 21 of exhibit P-11 on this record).
Aside from the claims in parent’s complaint which were explicitly held out of evidentiary consideration, and are still at issue between the parties at a separate ODR file number, any claim related to the program and placement for the 2026-2027 school year not specifically addressed in this decision and order is denied and dismissed. s/ Michael J. McElligott, Esquire Michael J. McElligott, Esquire Special Education Hearing Officer 03/30/2026
Footnotes
[1] The generic use of “student”, and avoidance of personal pronouns, are employed to protect the confidentiality of the student.
[2] It is this hearing officer’s preference to cite to the pertinent federal implementing regulations of the IDEA at 34 C.F.R. §§300.1-300.818. See also 22 PA Code §§14.101-14.162 (“Chapter 14”).
[3] Certain claims by the parent in her complaint were bifurcated into a separate hearing process. As set forth below, this decision needed to be issued on a very quick timeline (but not a statutorily-mandated expedited timeline) as to the 2026-2027 program and placement issue. The remaining issues proceed in a separate process at a different ODR file number.
[4] The student’s post-graduation programming regarding independent living skills was not deeply at issue. It is not disputed on this record that the student will reside with family during post-graduation programming but will require some degree of instruction in independent living skills.
[5] The deadline for the College Program was March 16, 2026. The director of the College Program testified that this deadline was extended to March 31, 2026 to allow for this decision to bring clarity to the program/placement dispute for the student’s 2026-2027 school year. There is no operative deadline involving programming at the Vo-Tech. (NT at 312-313, 579-583).
[6] The IEP team’s discussions in November 2025 also included consideration of a program similar to the College Program, offered at a local community college (“Community College Program”). While the Community College Program was not made part of the District’s proposed program/placement through the December 2025 NOREP, hearing-planning included the development of evidence about the Community College Program, erring on the side of caution should that evidence be found necessary and to ensure a comprehensive record. Ultimately, that evidence was not deemed to be probative of the 2026-2027 program/placement issue and, thus, has played no role in fact-finding. (See P-8, P-9, P-16, P-22; NT at 592-649).