Complaint Summary

Date Findings Report Sent:

July 03, 2025

Case Number:

25-0589

Grade Level:

Elementary

Person filing complaint:

Advocate

School District:

New Haven Public Schools

Allegation(s):

• Issue 1: The complainant alleges that the District committed a Child Find violation under the IDEA, by failing to identify and evaluate the Student for special education and related services despite the Parent’s request for evaluations and repeated out of school suspensions. 34 CFR § 300.111 and RCSA § 10-76d-7
• Issue 2: The complainant alleges that the District knew the Student was a Student with a disability prior to disciplinary measures. 34 CFR § 300.534

Conclusion(s):

• Issue 1: Upon the Parent’s request for a referral to the SSST in March 2025, the Student had accumulated and served 8.5 days of out of school suspension and 0.75 days of in-school suspension. The Student, who was new to the school this year, had engaged in behavior that violated the District’s code of student conduct on two occasions, one in January 2025 and one in March 2025, which resulted in the suspensions. On April 2, 2025, when the Parent picked up the Student from school following his third suspension of the school year, the Parent verbally requested an evaluation and then followed up in writing on April 7, 2025. The two earlier suspensions alone would not have met the requirements for the District to initiate their Child Find responsibilities. In response to the Parent’s concerns on March 21, 2025, the District attempted to provide support to the Student in the form of school-based counseling, but did not receive written consent from the Parents to do so. The Student’s attendance during the 2024-2025 school year had not been considered unsatisfactory, although the Student had accumulated 8 excused absences and 5 unexcused absences by the end of the second marking period. Academically, the Student was struggling in Reading, earning a 1 on his report cards which was below grade level. His benchmark assessments also indicated that the Student was reading below grade level, but he had shown more than one year of growth between the fall and winter assessments. It is concluded that the District did not violate 34 CFR § 300.111 and RCSA § 10-76d-7 by not referring the Student to special education prior to the Parent’s referral on April 7, 2025. No corrective action is required. Although the District accepted the Parent’s written request for an evaluation on April 7, 2025, and it is noted that there were many emails back and forth attempting to schedule the PPT meeting, the PPT meeting following the Parent’s written request on April 7, 2025, was not held until June 4, 2025. RCSA § 10-76d-13 requires that if a student is found eligible for special education, the individualized education program (IEP) must be implemented within forty-five school days of referral or notice, exclusive of the time required to obtain parental consent. Therefore, the District is in violation of the timeline for conducting an initial evaluation and implementing an IEP if the Student is found to be eligible for special education and related services. Corrective action is required.
• Issue 2: Based on a review of the available information on the District’s SSST, it is concluded that the SSST is not presented or intended by the District as being part of the special education process. Therefore, the Parent’s request for a referral to the SSST (Fact #15) and the statement, “I truly believe that [Student] would benefit from intervention strategies”, does not meet the requirements in which a District is deemed to have had knowledge that the Student was a Student with a disability before the behavior that precipitated the disciplinary action on April 2, 2025. The Parent’s written request on April 7, 2025, for an evaluation, including an FBA, was submitted after the behavior that resulted in the 10-day out of school suspension pending expulsion on April 2, 2025. Therefore, it is determined that the District is not in violation of 34 CFR § 300.534 and is not deemed to have knowledge that the Student was a Student with a disability prior to taking disciplinary measures against the Student on April 2, 2025. The IDEA sets forth conditions that apply when a District does not have knowledge that a Student is a Student with a disability prior to taking disciplinary measures against the Student. 34 CFR § 300.534(d)(2) requires that if a request is made for an evaluation of a Student during the time period in which the Student is subjected to disciplinary measures under § 300.530, the evaluation must be conducted in an expedited manner. Until the evaluation is completed, the Student remains in the educational placement determined by school authorities, which can include suspension or expulsion without educational services. While the IDEA does not provide a specific timeline for the completion of an expedited evaluation, it does clarify that the evaluation should be conducted in a shorter period of time than a typical evaluation. Based on the conclusion that the District was not deemed to have knowledge that the Student was a Student with a disability and the date of the Parent’s request for an evaluation on April 7, 2025, while the Student was subjected to disciplinary measures, the District should have expedited the evaluation. Instead, the PPT meeting to review the referral and consider conducting an initial evaluation was not held until June 4, 2025, which resulted in a violation of 34 CFR § 300.534(d)(2). Upon receipt of the Parent’s referral to special education, the District should have acted swiftly to ensure the evaluation was conducted in an expedited manner. The referral was received on a Monday and was not forwarded to the PPT Chair until Friday which resulted in a week of time lost in the initial evaluation timeline. While it is noted that there were emails back and forth attempting to schedule the PPT meeting, days passed between the emails. The District continued to be obligated to convene a PPT meeting and conduct an initial evaluation in an expedited manner in accordance with the IDEA. Corrective action is required.

Corrective Action(s):

1. On or before August 29, 2025, the District must provide training to the building administrators and special education administrators at the school the Student attended for the 2024-2025 school year on the requirements of the initial referral process for determination of eligibility for special education services, including the District’s process when receiving a referral, the referral timeline, and steps to ensure compliance with the timeline. Documentation of this review and the staff that participated must be sent to this investigator upon completion.
2. On or before August 29, 2025, the District must provide training to the building administrators and special education administrators at the school the Student attended for the 2024-2025 school year on the requirements of 34 CFR § 300.534(d)(2) and an expedited evaluation when the request for an evaluation is made during the time period in which the Student is subjected to disciplinary measures. Documentation of this review and the staff that participated must be sent to this investigator upon completion.
3. Within five school days of the PPT meeting for the purpose of reviewing evaluations and determining eligibility for special education and related services, the District must provide to this investigator all of the documentation from the eligibility determination PPT meeting. If the Student is determined to be eligible for special education and related services, the CSDE will determine and issue corrective actions items as appropriate.