Complaint Summary

Date Findings Report Sent:

July 15, 2025

Case Number:

25-0622

Grade Level:

Elementary

Person filing complaint:

Advocate

School District:

New Haven Public Schools

Allegation(s):

Conclusion(s):

• On February 20, 2025, the District held a Manifestation Determination PPT meeting to review Student's behavior that resulted in a day 10 out of school suspension. The PPT determined that the behavior was a manifestation of the student's disability, and the District recommended removing the Student to an IAES for up to 45 school days as a result of the Student inflicting serious bodily injury upon another person while at school. In accordance with 34 CFR § 300.532, the Parent of a child with a disability who disagrees with any decision regarding change of placement under §§ 300.530 and 300.531 or the manifestation determination under § 300.530(e), may appeal the decision by requesting a hearing. The Parent was provided a copy of the Procedural Safeguards which outlined the appeal process. While the Parent and Advocate expressed their refusal of the IAES via emails to the District, they never requested a hearing to appeal the District’s decision. At a PPT meeting held on March 17, 2025, the District indicated that they continued to recommend the IAES which the Parent was refusing, however, the District worked with the Parent to come to an agreement on the educational placement. Due to the Parent's refusal to have the Student attend the IAES, the District proposed instruction in the home pending the Student’s possible placement at two approved private special education programs (APSEPs) identified by the Parent. The Summary of Planning and Placement Team Meeting documented the Student’s outside clinician’s recommendation for a smaller setting with a higher staff to student ratio. The Parent refused the instruction in the home offered in the afternoon, including a virtual option and stated that they were only available between 10am and 1pm each day. The District made referrals to the APSEPs that the Parent requested, and the Student began attending one of these programs on June 16, 2025. While it is a significant concern that the Student did not receive instruction from February 25, 2025, through June 13, 2025, the District did make FAPE available to the Student when recommending the 45-day placement at the IAES on February 20, 2025. The District reported that they had available contracted seats at the IAES and could implement the recommendation immediately. The PWN for the PPT meeting held on February 20, 2025, indicated an implementation date for the recommendation for the change of placement as March 13, 2025. Based on the Parent and Advocate’s continued refusal of the IAES, instruction in the home was recommended at the PPT meeting held on March 17, 2025, while referrals were made to the APSEPs identified by the Parent. The Parent’s disagreement with the location of the IAES and their availability of 10am to 1pm as the only time of day that the Student was available for instruction in the home does not negate the District’s offerings of FAPE. It is however noted that the District’s statement that there was nothing preventing the Student from returning to their original school on February 25, 2025, is not supported by the District’s recommendation for the Student’s removal to the IAES and the Parent and Advocate’s communications to the District citing missed days of instruction and lack of a safety plan as of February 25, 2025. At the PPT meeting held on March 17, 2025, the District stated that the Student returning to his school was no longer an option and that the PPT was recommending a change of placement to a smaller setting with a higher student to staff ratio in order to support the Student which was supported by the Student’s outside clinician’s recommendations. The District then restated these recommendations and placement options in an email on April 7, 2025, that the District was offering the options of the IAES or homebound tutoring pending placement at an APSEP. It is concluded that the District satisfied its obligation to provide FAPE to the Student by recommending and offering the IAES and subsequently recommending an out of district placement through the PPT process and therefore did not violate 34 CFR § 300.101. No corrective action is required. See the recommendations below. The recommendation for homebound instruction while the Student was pending a new placement in an APSEP, is not a sufficient reason for homebound instruction. The District did not follow the required procedures for recommending homebound instruction as they did not have a written statement from the Student’s treating physician indicating that the Student could not attend school due to a verified medical reason. A PPT may recommend instruction in the home in accordance with 34 CFR § 300.115(b)(1) which identifies home instruction as an alternative placement listed in the definition of special education under § 300.38, as the Student’s least restrictive environment (LRE). It is determined that the District violated RCSA § 10-76d-15 as the Student was not unable to attend school due to a verified medical reason which may include mental health issues. Instruction in the home was however available to the Student pursuant to the IDEA’s obligation for a District to provide a continuum of alternative placements in the Student’s LRE. Corrective action is required. AFTER CORRECTIVE ACTION: Recommendations: It is strongly recommended that the District provide training to the building administrators at the Student’s school for the 2024-2025 school year and districtwide special education administrators on the process of removing a student to an interim alternative education setting for not more than 45 school days when special circumstances exist in accordance with 34 CFR § 300.530(g) to assist with an future situations in which the Parent disagrees with the IAES. It is strongly recommended that the District convene a PPT meeting in September or October 2025, to review the Student’s present levels of performance to ensure that his annual goals and objectives are appropriate and to review the FBA that will be conducted in the Student’s new educational placement.

Corrective Action(s):

1. The District must provide the building and special education administrators at the Student’s school during the 2024-2025 school year with training on RCSA § 10-76d-15 focusing on a Student’s eligibility for homebound instruction, the appropriate and intended use of homebound instruction as outlined in state and federal regulations as well as the difference between homebound instruction and instruction in the home as an alternative placement in the Student’s LRE. An overview of the training including materials as well as staff signatures, titles, and date indicating the completion of the training must be submitted to this investigator no later than September 5, 2025