Complaint Summary

Date:

July 19, 2024

Case Number:

24-0553

Grade Level:

Elementary

Person filing complaint:

Parent

School District:

Watertown Public Schools (single student)

Allegation(s):

• Failure to implement the IEP. The Parent claimed that the paraprofessional was not a certified behavior technician as outlined in the IEP. 34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17(d) and Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) § 10-76d-1(a)(1) require each board of education to provide in a timely way special education and related services in accordance with the student’s IEP. The Parent also claims that the District did not implement the Student’s Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP) when calling the Parent to pick the Student up early from school due to behavioral concerns.
• Failure to provide FAPE (34 CFR § 300.101 and RCSA § 10-76d-1). The Parent claimed that she was called on multiple occasions to pick the Student up from school early due to behavioral concerns/issues.
• Failure to revise BIP in accordance with state law. Connecticut General Statute § 10-236b(g) states that in the event that physical restraint or seclusion is used on a student four or more times within 20 school days, such student's PPT shall convene for the purpose of: (A) conducting or revising a behavioral assessment of the student, and (B) creating or revising any applicable behavioral intervention plan, including, but not limited to, such student's individualized education plan.

Conclusion(s):

• 34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17(d) and RCSA § 10-76d-1(a)(1) require each board of education to provide in a timely way special education and related services in accordance with the student’s IEP. Through the course of this investigation, it is determined that the paraeducator support provided to the Student was provided by a paraeducator who had completed a 40 hour behavior technician training as well as a practicum with the BCBA. It is further determined that on March 15, 2024, when the Student was sent home from school early due to escalated behaviors, the District utilized proactive and reactive strategies from the Student’s BIP during incidents that led to two separate seclusions, and the Parent being asked to pick the Student up early from school. As it relates to these matters, the District did not violate 34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17(d) or (RCSA) § 10-76d-1(a)(1) requiring each board of education to provide in a timely way special education and related services in accordance with the student’s IEP.
• Through the course of this investigation, there was enough evidence to confirm that the Student was sent home early from school on at least two occasions. When making a determination regarding a potential denial of FAPE, a student’s access to their education and progress in the general education curriculum needs to be examined. The Student’s progress on his IEP goals and objectives range throughout the 2023-2024 school year from no progress to mastered depending on the goal area and specific objective/skill. In the areas where the Student made limited progress, the level of progress is consistent throughout the school year, and was noted as minimal progress prior to the increase in behavioral needs and incidents of restraint and seclusion that began in March of 2024. In response to the limited progress, at the Student’s annual review, the District substantially increased the Student’s special education and related services. It is determined that the District did provide a free appropriate public education in accordance with 34 CFR § 300.101 and RCSA § 10-76d-1, and therefore is not in violation.
• The District convened a PPT meeting following 5 incidents (incident 4 and 5 occurred on the same day) of seclusion or restraint in a twenty school day time period. The District reviewed the Student’s Functional Behavioral Assessment and updated the Student’s BIP. The District recommended increasing supplementary aids and services to include one to one paraprofessional support for the Student who previously had paraprofessional support in all areas but not specifically one to one support. The District updated the strategies, protocols, and procedures in the Student’s BIP utilizing current information from ABC data sheets. The District also recommended implementing a sensory diet following the review of a sensory processing measure. It is determined that the District acted in compliance with Connecticut General Statute § 10-236b(g).

Corrective Action(s):

• The District must review with all school administrators Section 10-233-a through Section 10-233-c of the Connecticut General Statutes .
• The District is required to recode the two incidents as out of school suspensions and provide the Parent with proper documentation.