New Haven 25-0701

Complaint Summary

Date Findings Report Sent:

October 27, 2025

Case Number:

25-0701

Grade Level:

Middle

Person filing complaint:

Attorney

School District:

New Haven Public Schools

Allegation(s):

  • The complainant alleged that the District failed to fulfill their child find obligations by failing to identify and evaluate the Student for special education and related services despite the Student’s behavior and disciplinary record and poor grades and academic achievement. 34 CFR § 300.111 and RCSA § 10-76d-7

  • The complainant alleged that the District failed to provide a free appropriate public education by changing the Student’s placement to the most restrictive education setting which was “homebound instruction”. 34 CFR § 300.101 and 34 CFR § 300.114

  • The Parent alleges that the District did not provide the Student with the “Intensive Instruction Program during the summer (2025)” as recommended in her IEP dated May 12, 2025. 34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17(d) and RCSA § 10-76d-1(a)(1)

Conclusion(s):

  • Issue 1: RCSA requires Districts to promptly refer to a PPT a child who has been suspended repeatedly or whose behavior, attendance or progress in school is considered unsatisfactory or at a marginal level of acceptance. Given the severity of the incident on January 17, 2025, the Student’s escalation from the start of the school year which included six office managed discipline referrals between the start of the school year and the incident on January 17, 2025, and the 3-day out of school suspension on October 15, 2024, as well as the Student’s diagnosis and existing Section 504 plan; it is determined that the Student’s behavior was considered unsatisfactory following the incident that occurred on the school bus during a field trip on January 17, 2025. Once considered unsatisfactory, the District was obligated to refer the Student and convene a PPT meeting to discuss her behavior, its possible impact on her education, and to determine if the District needed to conduct an initial evaluation. At the manifestation determination review following the incident on January 17, 2025, while the team determined that the behaviors were not a manifestation of the Student’s disability, the Student’s Section 504 plan was revised to add “access to fidgets/manipulatives during class as an outlet for energy” which does not appear to have a clear connection to the incident on the bus that led to her 10-day out of school suspension and subsequent 10-day bus suspension. It is also noted that the District identified the Student as a Student with a disability and eligible for special education and related services on May 12, 2025, following the Parent’s referral and the continued escalation of the Student’s behaviors. It is concluded that the District violated RCSA § 10-76d-7 as a result of not referring the Student to special education once her behavior was considered unsatisfactory or at a marginal level. Corrective action is required.

  • Connecticut General Statutes (CGS) 10-233a(d) "Suspension" means an exclusion from school privileges or from transportation services only for no more than ten consecutive school days, provided such exclusion shall not extend beyond the end of the school year in which such suspension was imposed.

  • On January 17, 2025, the Student received a 10-day out of school suspension and a subsequent 10-day bus suspension total of 20 consecutive days of suspension for one incident. While CGS are outside of the scope of the state complaint process, this matter will be referred internally to the CSDE Consultant for school discipline for review and follow up, as appropriate.

  • Issue 2: The Parent, her attorney, and the District stipulated and agreed to certain conditions in lieu of expulsion. The stipulated agreement for expulsion included that the Student was denied all school privileges, was not to appear on any [District] grounds, nor participate in school or [District] activities. The agreement stated that the Student would participate in “homebound instruction” through the remainder of the 2024-2025 school year, which she did. Therefore, the District was not in violation of 34 CFR § 300.101 or 34 CFR § 300.114 when recommending instruction in the home for the remainder of the 2024-2025 school year.

  • Issue 3: The District acknowledges that it was an oversight that the Student was not provided with the intensive instruction program during the summer of 2025 that had been recommended in her IEP. Therefore, the District was in violation of 34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17(d) and RCSA § 10-76d-1(a)(1). Corrective action is required.

Corrective Action(s):

  • Issue 1: RCSA requires Districts to promptly refer to a PPT a child who has been suspended repeatedly or whose behavior, attendance or progress in school is considered unsatisfactory or at a marginal level of acceptance. Given the severity of the incident on January 17, 2025, the Student’s escalation from the start of the school year which included six office managed discipline referrals between the start of the school year and the incident on January 17, 2025, and the 3-day out of school suspension on October 15, 2024, as well as the Student’s diagnosis and existing Section 504 plan; it is determined that the Student’s behavior was considered unsatisfactory following the incident that occurred on the school bus during a field trip on January 17, 2025. Once considered unsatisfactory, the District was obligated to refer the Student and convene a PPT meeting to discuss her behavior, its possible impact on her education, and to determine if the District needed to conduct an initial evaluation. At the manifestation determination review following the incident on January 17, 2025, while the team determined that the behaviors were not a manifestation of the Student’s disability, the Student’s Section 504 plan was revised to add “access to fidgets/manipulatives during class as an outlet for energy” which does not appear to have a clear connection to the incident on the bus that led to her 10-day out of school suspension and subsequent 10-day bus suspension. It is also noted that the District identified the Student as a Student with a disability and eligible for special education and related services on May 12, 2025, following the Parent’s referral and the continued escalation of the Student’s behaviors. It is concluded that the District violated RCSA § 10-76d-7 as a result of not referring the Student to special education once her behavior was considered unsatisfactory or at a marginal level. Corrective action is required.

  • Connecticut General Statutes (CGS) 10-233a(d) "Suspension" means an exclusion from school privileges or from transportation services only for no more than ten consecutive school days, provided such exclusion shall not extend beyond the end of the school year in which such suspension was imposed.

  • On January 17, 2025, the Student received a 10-day out of school suspension and a subsequent 10-day bus suspension total of 20 consecutive days of suspension for one incident. While CGS are outside of the scope of the state complaint process, this matter will be referred internally to the CSDE Consultant for school discipline for review and follow up, as appropriate.

  • Issue 2: The Parent, her attorney, and the District stipulated and agreed to certain conditions in lieu of expulsion. The stipulated agreement for expulsion included that the Student was denied all school privileges, was not to appear on any [District] grounds, nor participate in school or [District] activities. The agreement stated that the Student would participate in “homebound instruction” through the remainder of the 2024-2025 school year, which she did. Therefore, the District was not in violation of 34 CFR § 300.101 or 34 CFR § 300.114 when recommending instruction in the home for the remainder of the 2024-2025 school year.

  • Issue 3: The District acknowledges that it was an oversight that the Student was not provided with the intensive instruction program during the summer of 2025 that had been recommended in her IEP. Therefore, the District was in violation of 34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17(d) and RCSA § 10-76d-1(a)(1). Corrective action is required.