Complaint Summary

Date Findings Report Sent:

12/12/25

Case Number:

25-0172

School District:

Enfield

Person:

Parent

Grade Level:

Elementary

Allegations:

Issue 1: 34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17(d), 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.

RCSA § 10-76d-10 provides that a planning and placement team (PPT) shall be responsible for meetings to develop the IEP, and meetings to review or revise the IEP.

RCSA § 10-76d-11 provides that each board of education shall develop, review and revise the IEP for each child with a disability in accordance with the requirements of the IDEA.

RCSA § 10-76d-11(d) provides that each board of education shall use the IEP form developed by the Department of Education.

RCSA § 10-76d-13 provides that a full copy of the IEP shall be sent to the parents within five days after the PPT meeting to develop, review or revise the IEP.

The Parent alleged that the District failed to implement the Student's individualized education program (IEP) as written by reducing service times between March 6, 2024, and May 22, 2024, without convening a planning and placement team (PPT) meeting; and failing to consistently provide one-to-one paraeducator support between October 27, 2023, and March 5, 2024, as required by the IEP.

Issue 2: CGS § 10-236b(j)(l) provides that any use of physical restraint on a student shall be documented in the student's educational record. The documentation shall include the following: the nature of the emergency and what other steps, including attempts at verbal de-escalation, were taken to prevent the emergency from arising if there were indications that such an emergency was likely to arise; a detailed description of the nature of the restraint; the duration of the restraint; and the effect of such restraint on the student's established educational plan.

RCSA § 10-76b-9 provides that if a Student is restrained, an attempt must be made to notify the parent on the day of or within twenty-four hours after, the restraint. Additionally, the parent of a child who is restrained must be sent a copy of the incident report no later than two business days after the restraint.

CGS § 10-236b(a)(5) defines seclusion as the involuntary confinement of a student in a room, whether alone or with supervision, in a manner that prevents the student from leaving.

The Parent alleged that the District failed to properly document 44 incidents of restraint and seclusion between August 29, 2023, and June 24, 2024, of which 38 occurred during the period of this investigation. The Parent further alleges that the District failed to make a reasonable effort to provide notification to the Parent of an incident on May 20, 2024; and to accurately classify five incidents on that date as restraint rather than seclusion.

Issue 3: CGS § 10-236b(a)(5) defines seclusion as the involuntary confinement of a student in a room, whether alone or with supervision, in a manner that prevents the student from leaving.

CGS § 10-236b(a)(3) defines physical restraint as any mechanical or personal restriction that immobilizes or reduces the free movement of a person's arms, legs, or head. The term does not include briefly holding a person to calm or comfort the person or a restraint involving the minimum contact necessary to safely escort a person from one area to another.

CGS § 10-236b(b) provides that no school employee shall use a physical restraint on a student except as an emergency intervention to prevent immediate or imminent injury to the student or to others, provided the restraint is not used for discipline or convenience and is not used as a substitute for a less restrictive alternative. The parent or guardian must be notified of each incident in which a child is placed in a restraint.

CGS § 10-236b(j)(l) provides that any use of physical restraint on a student shall be documented in the student's educational record. No school employee shall place a student in seclusion except as an emergency intervention.

CGS § 10-236b(d)(1) provides that the area in which a student is secluded must be equipped with a window or other fixture allowing such student a clear line of sight beyond the area of seclusion.

CGS § 10-236b(a)(7)(f) provides that in the event that physical restraint or seclusion is used on a student four or more times within twenty school days: (1) An administrator, one or more of such student's teachers, a parent or guardian of such student and, if any, a mental health professional, as defined in section 10-76t, shall convene for the purpose of (A) conducting or revising a behavioral assessment of the student, (B) creating or revising any applicable behavioral intervention plan, and (C) determining whether such student may require special education pursuant to section 10-76ff; or (2) If such student is a child requiring special education, as described in subparagraph (A) of subdivision (5) of section 10-76a, or a child being evaluated for eligibility for special education pursuant to section 10-76d and awaiting a determination, such student's planning and placement team 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.

34 CFR § 300.101 requires a district to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for each child with a disability consistent with the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

The Parent alleges that the District failed to employ de-escalation strategies prior to the use of restraints or seclusions; used seclusion or restraint in non-emergency situations; and left the Student in a seclusion room that did not meet statutory safety requirements.

Conclusions:

1. 34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17(d), 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 alleged that that the District failed to provide one-to-one paraeducator support between October 27, 2023 and March 5, 2024 as required by the IEP. The October 27, 2023 IEP provides for 1:1 paraprofessional-behavioral supports under the Adult Support section of the IEP. The District argues that this was a mistake, and that this was not meant to be a 1:1 paraeducator, but instead a shared paraprofessional, which should have been listed as an indirect service. The District did not convene a PPT meeting or amend the IEP to correct this mistake. Therefore, the District was required to implement the IEP as written. The District convened a PPT meeting on March 6, 2024 and revised the paraprofessional support. The PPT recommended decreasing the adult support for the Student from "all areas" in the previous IEP to "unstructured times-play centers, recess, specials as needed." The District informed the Parent about staffing issues in January and February of 2024 (See Finding of Fact #11). The staffing issues in January and February and the District's denial that the Student was entitled to 1:1 paraprofessional support per his IEP, leads one to the conclusion that the District failed to implement the Student's IEP in violation of 34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17(d) and RCSA § 10- 76d-1(a)(1). Corrective action is required, see below.

2. RCSA § 10-76d-10 provides that a planning and placement team (PPT) shall be responsible for meetings to develop the IEP, and meeting to review or revise the IEP. A PPT was held on March 6, 2024 to review or revise the IEP. District stated at this PPT meeting, the team recommended "a soft start and finish to the end of the day (non- contingent free time in alternative setting) will be added to the [Student's] day." The District wrote this in the Record of Meeting²⁴, but did not include it in the IEP. Further, the District reported that the "soft start" and "cool down" occurred during the service identified as Pre-Academic Skills for 30 minutes a day in the resource setting. However, these services were listed as push-in services in the IEP, so if the Student was pulled out of the classroom during this time, then the Student's IEP could be inaccurate in other places as well (e.g., calculation of time with non-disabled peers). The District admitted that this recommendation should have been included in the IEP and not the Record of Meeting. The Parent alleged that the "soft start" and "cool down" periods were removed from the IEP without a PPT meeting. District did not remove these services, instead it incorrectly did not include them in the IEP. When the District failed to include a recommendation of the PPT in the IEP, it violated RCSA § 10-76d-10.  Corrective action is required, see below.

3. RCSA § 10-76d-11 provides that each board of education shall develop, review and revise the IEP for each child with a disability in accordance with the requirements of the IDEA. RCSA § 10-76d-11(d) provides that each board of education shall use the IEP form developed by the Department of Education. RCSA § 10-76d-13 provides that a full copy of the IEP shall be sent to the parents within five days after the PPT meeting to develop, review or revise the IEP. The District failed to create a Record of Meeting and/or IEP and/or failed to upload these documents in CT-SEDS for meetings held on December 19, 2023, March 27, 2024, and June 11. 2024. These actions violate RCSA § 10-76d-11, RCSA § 10-76d-11(d), and RCSA § 10-76d-13. Corrective action is required, see below.

4. CGS § 10-236b(j)(l) provides that any use of physical restraint on a student shall be documented in the student's educational record. The documentation shall include the following: the nature of the emergency and what other steps, including attempts at verbal de-escalation, were taken to prevent the emergency from arising if there were indications that such an emergency was likely to arise; a detailed description of the nature of the restraint; the duration of the restraint; and the effect of such restraint on the student's established educational plan. RCSA § 10-76b-9 provides that if a Student is restrained, an attempt must be made to notify the parent on the day of or within twenty-four hours after, the restraint. Additionally, the parent of a child who is restrained must be sent a copy of the incident report no later than two business days after the restraint. CGS § 10-236a(a)(5) defines seclusion as the involuntary confinement of a student in a room, whether alone or with supervision, in a manner that prevents the student from leaving.  As evidenced in Table 1, the District complied with the educational record and notification requirements regarding the 38 restraints/seclusions that occurred during the relevant investigation period. Therefore, the District did not violate CGS § 10-236b(j)(l) or RCSA § 10-76b-9.  Although the police arrived before the Parent, the District still met the required timeline for restraint notification. Therefore, no violation of RCSA § 10-76b-9 is found. On May 20, 2024, the District documented five incidents of restraint but no seclusions. Throughout the video, the door to the room where the Student is being held remains closed. It is clear from the video, that the Student was not allowed to leave the room as long as he remained dysregulated and therefore was secluded in the room for the time period he was not allowed to leave. Thus, the District violated the above cited statutes and regulations when it did not record the seclusion in the Student's educational record. Corrective action is required, see below.

5. CGS § 10-236a(a)(5) defines seclusion as the involuntary confinement of a student in a room, whether alone or with supervision, in a manner that prevents the student from leaving. CGS § 10-236a(a)(3) defines physical restraint as any mechanical or personal restriction that immobilizes or reduces the free movement of a person's arms, legs, or head. The term does not include briefly holding a person to calm or comfort the person or a restraint involving the minimum contact necessary to safely escort a person from one area to another. CGS § 10-236b(b) provides that no school employee shall use a physical restraint on a student except as an emergency intervention to prevent immediate or imminent injury to the student or to others, provided the restraint is not used for discipline or convenience and is not used as a substitute for a less restrictive alternative. The parent or guardian must be notified of each incident in which a child is placed in a restraint. CGS § 10-236b(d)(1) provides that the area in which a student is secluded must be equipped with a window or other fixture allowing such student a clear line of sight beyond the area of seclusion.

Table 3 outlines the 38 incidents of restraint/seclusion administered by staff on the Student from October 2, 2023 through May 20, 2024. The precipitating incident for all 38 occurrences involved physical aggression to other students or to staff. Therefore, it may be concluded that staff used restraints and seclusions as emergency interventions to prevent immediate or imminent injury to others. The evidence taken as a whole in this case, however, calls into question whether the restraints were not used as discipline, convenience, or used as a substitute for a less restrictive alternative.

For example, the video from May 20, 2024, shows staff not using de-escalation techniques or implementing a behavior intervention plan. This resulted in the Student being secluded for over 90 minutes, five restraints, and calls to the police and emergency services. This event occurred after the Student had been in the school for approximately eight months and had experienced 33 prior incidents of restraints/seclusions.  Despite the District's argument that the Student's behavior improved over time, and that that goals and objectives in the Student's IEP addressed the Student's behavior, the various data sources available in this case demonstrate otherwise. The only data that shows slight improvement over time is the data contained in Table 5. However, this data is incomplete (missing dates) and inconsistent with records showing the Student was restrained on the same day.  From the PPT meeting on October 27, 2023 to the PPT meeting on May 5, 2024, the Student was secluded two times and restrained 25 times. During this time, the PPT reduced the Student's paraprofessional support, never recommended an FBA or a BIP, and increased the Student's special education and related services only minimally once. Early in the school year, restraints were brief and reactive to elopement and aggression during transitions. (See Table 4). From September 2023 through November 2023, staff avoided secluding the Student on most occasions, even when he engaged in acts of aggression. This aligns with the time during which the Student has a 1:1 paraprofessional listed in his IEP. By December 2023, multiple same day incidents (i.e., three on December 5, 2024) were documented without evidence of a BIP or revised behavior strategies. Between March and May 2024, incident frequency and intensity increased: seven incidents in three days between March 20-22, 2024, and nine incidents across four school days: May 13-20, 2024. The record shows a delay between the onset of repeated behavioral crises and formal PPT review, despite repeated staff recommendations to hold PPTs following incident clusters. Table 3 illustrates the increase in the frequency and prevalence of restraints over time. Despite listing next actions, such as, staff to review de-escalation strategies to reduce recurrence of seclusions, nothing was substantially changed by the school team or the PPT. Table 2 and the corresponding graph illustrates the increase in duration of the restraints.  The District did not use appropriate tools, such as an FBA and a BIP, to identify the triggers for the Student's behaviors. Without this information, the team was unable to determine whether less restrictive interventions could prevent the seclusion and restraint of the Student. Given the frequency of restraints and seclusion, and the fact that no FBA was conducted nor BIP developed, the District relied on excessive use of restraints to respond to the Student's behavior. Therefore, the District violated CGS § 10-236b(b). Corrective action is required, see below.

6. With regard to the room where staff secluded the Student on May 20, 2024, it does not meet the statutory requirement for a room where a Student can be secluded. The one window to the hallway is too tall for the Student to look out of. It also appears from the video that the window is covered with paper, so one cannot see in or out of the window. Since the room was not equipped with a window or other fixture allowing the student a clear line of sight beyond the area of seclusion, the District violated CGS § 10-236b(d)(1) which provides that the area in which a student is secluded must be equipped with a window or other fixture allowing such student a clear line of sight beyond the area of seclusion. Corrective action is required, see below.

During the investigation period, it is concluded that of the 39 incidents of restraint or seclusion, there should have been 9 PPTs held to review the incidents and explore behavioral supports given the number of instances and the requirement to hold a PPT when four incidents occur within 20 days. There is only evidence of two of these meetings occurring (March 6, 2024, and May 28, 2024). Meetings should have occurred following incidents on December 11, 2024; February 28, 2024; March 14, 2024; March 22, 2924; April 4, 2024; and May 16, 2024. Within this period, four PPTs were scheduled, and the invitations note that the purpose of these meetings was to review incidents of Restraint and Seclusion, however no PPTs were held. These meetings were scheduled to be held on December 19, 2023; March 27, 2024; June 10, 2024, and June 11, 2024. Following the fourth incident on April 4, 2024, there were three additional incidents that occurred before a PPT was held on May 7, 2024. Following the meeting on May 7, 2024, 11 incidents occurred before PPT on May 28, 2024. The invitation for the PPT on May 28, 2024, does not indicate that one purpose of the meeting is to review the incidents of restraint and seclusion. A meeting was held on May 28, 2024 that may have replaced the one scheduled for June 10, 2024.  It is concluded that following the Student being determined eligible for special education in October 2023, only three PPT meetings were held during the rest of the school year despite 39 incidents of restraint or seclusion hiring. Further, while some adjustments were made to IEP such as a change and increase of service over two IEPs, and changes to the adult support being provided, there was little mention of the impact of behavior as present levels were not updated, goals were not revised or changed despite progress reports noting that the academic goal would not be addressed while focusing on behavior, and there was never a recommendation for an FBA to consider a BIP. The District maintains that an FBA was not recommended because the Student had behavioral goals in the IEP and an informal behavior chart. Despite the use of behavior logs and charts, and a document referred to as a support plan, no discussion regarding either or behavior data is memorialized. In a meeting a few days before the annual review, the student is recommended to a more restrictive setting and to provide a Behavior Technician in the next school year (2024-2025).  Through this investigation, it is evident that the District did not convene PPT meetings to review the incidents when four occurred within 20 days, per CGS § 10-236b(b). Corrective action is required, see below.

7. Federal and State regulations require LEAs to provide a FAPE to all children residing in its school district. (34 CFR 300.101 and RCSA § 10-76d-1). FAPE means special education and related services that are provided in conformity with an IEP that meets the requirements identified in the IDEA and state special education laws and regulations. In other words, the IEP is the vehicle for providing a student with a FAPE. Special education consists of specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of the student with a disability. Specially designed instruction is defined as adapting the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction to address the unique needs of the student to ensure access to the general curriculum so the student can meet the standards within the jurisdiction of the LEA that apply to all children. Therefore, the PPT should focus on the requirements of the general curriculum when developing a student's IEP. An IEP must include a statement of the student's present levels to show how the student's disability affects the student's involvement in the general education curriculum. This corresponds with the requirement that the IEP must include measurable annual goals designed to meet the student's need that result from the student's disability to enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum. Additionally, the IEP must include a description of when periodic reports of the Student's progress toward meeting the annual goals will be provided. Substantively, the IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable the student to make appropriate progress in light of their individual circumstances. A student would be denied a FAPE if his or her program is not likely to produce progress, or if the program affords the child only "trivial" or "de minimis" education benefit. After an IEP is developed, PPTs must review the student's IEP periodically, but not less than annually, to determine when the annual goals for the student are being achieved and to revise the IEP, as appropriate, to address any lack of expected progress toward the annual goals. (34 CFR 300.324(b) and RCSA 10-76d-11).  Given that the available progress reports indicate that the Student was not making the expected progress within one year on his individualized behavior and social/emotional goals and objectives, coupled with the number of incidents of emergency use of restraint and seclusion, and the lack of revisions to the Student's IEP despite these factors, the Student's IEP was not appropriate in light of the Student's circumstances and therefore did not provide the Student FAPE. Corrective action is required, see below.

Corrective Actions:

1. For the remainder of the 2025-26 school year, the District must provide monthly logs to this office documenting the implementation of the 1:1 paraprofessional services for the Student provided for in the Student's current IEP.
2. The District must provide a training to all special education teachers, administrators, paraeducators and related service providers in Hazardville School regarding the laws and regulations regarding developing IEPs and uploading documents into CT-SEDS no later than June 30, 2026. An agenda for the training and a list of attendees must be submitted to this office.
3. The District must upload the documents for the PPT meetings for December 19, 2023, March 27, 2024, and June 11. 2024 into CT-SEDS by January 22, 2024.
4. The District is obligated to provide a training to all special education teachers, administrators, paraeducators and related service providers in Hazardville School regarding the laws and regulations regarding the use of restraint and seclusion. Specifically, all staff will be provided training related to the laws around the emergency use of physical restraint and seclusion. All staff must be trained on what may or may not constitute imminent risk and therefore warrants the emergency use of restraint/seclusion; requirements to document a restraint or seclusion incident; verbal and non-verbal defusing or de-escalation strategies; and prevention strategies no later than April 30, 2026. An agenda for the training and a list of attendees must be submitted to this office.
5. The District is not allowed to use staff members to conduct the above training. It is required to hire an outside vendor with subject matter expertise to provide the training.
6. The District must properly report the seclusion that took place on May 20, 2024 into CT-SEDS by January 30, 2026.
7. The District must establish a point of contact for the emergency use of restraint and seclusion to liaison with the CSDE for the 2025-26 school year by December 31, 2025. This person will provide quarterly updates to the CSDE regarding trainings and incidents of restraint and seclusion.
8. The District may no longer use the room shown on the video as a seclusion room, without ensuring it complies with the statutory requirements outlined in CGS § 10-236b(d)(1). If the District decides to bring the room into compliance with the statutory requirements, it must notify this office before utilizing it as a seclusion room, so the BSE can conduct an inspection of the room before it is used. The District must ensure that any time that a student is placed in seclusion that the procedures and the space are in compliance with the statutory requirements.
9. The District must provide training to the special education and related services staff, including paraeducators, at Hazardville School on the topics of: Behavior as a function (including identifying, increasing/reinforcing, and decreasing target behaviors), Functional Behavioral Assessments (FBAs), proactive strategies, reactive strategies, prompting hierarchies, maintaining student privacy and dignity, and Behavior Intervention Plans (BIPs) no later than April 30, 2026. Training materials and a list of attendees must be submitted to this office.
10. The District must provide training to the special education and related services staff, including paraeducators, at Hazardville School about the legal requirement to convene a PPT meeting to review the IEP following four restraints in 20 days' time by April 30, 2026. Training materials and a list of attendees must be submitted to this office.
11. The District must provide the Student with 38 hours of compensatory services. The PPT shall convene a PPT meeting by January 16, 2026 to determine the type and schedule for the delivery of these services. These services may also be delivered during the summer. The District must provide this office with the documentation of this meeting within five days of the meeting taking place. The District must provide documentation to this office that the compensatory services were delivered by December 1, 2026.
12. The District shall submit to this office the Student's annual goal progress reports for his current IEP no later than five days after each marking quarter for 2025-26 school year and after the first marking quarter for the 2026-27 school year.