Complaint Summary

Date Findings Report Sent:

May 22, 2025

Case Number:

25-0495

Grade Level:

Elementary

Person filing complaint:

Parent

School District:

Rocky Hill Public Schools (single student)

Allegation(s):

• The Parent claims that the District denied the Student’s right to be educated in the least restrictive environment by placing her in a self-contained program for extended school year (ESY) services. 34 CFR § 300.106, 34 CFR § 300.114, and 34 CFR § 300.115(a-b)
• Upon this investigator’s review of the Student’s IEP in CT-SEDS dated December 11, 2024, it was noted that the purpose of the PPT meeting was to conduct an annual review and plan a three-year reevaluation. PPT members present at the PPT meeting included: the parent, general education teacher, special education teacher, and administration. A PPT Attendance Excusal document was created to excuse the school psychologist from the PPT meeting, indicating, “This staff member’s area of the curriculum or related services is not being modified or discussed in this meeting”. 34 CFR § 300.321

Conclusion(s):

• The District did not recommend ESY services at the Student’s annual review PPT meeting on December 11, 2024. Following the Parent’s inquiry about the regular education summer school program in January 2025, the District offered for the Student to attend ESY, despite determining that the Student did not require ESY for FAPE. Although the Parent mentioned a concern with regression on the Student’s iReady scores in an email to the District on January 15, 2025, a review of the scores did not substantiate the concern at a level that would have required the District to reconsider the Student’s eligibility for ESY services. The Student was also making satisfactory progress on her writing and reading goals and had mastered her first objective for both goal areas as of February 19, 2025. The District’s statement that ESY was offered as a courtesy to the Parent and not as a requirement for the Student to receive FAPE is contradicted by the addition of ESY services to the Student’s IEP through an Amendment. In the Amendment, the District checked “yes” that extended school year services were required for the Student to receive FAPE. If the District was offering ESY as an accommodation, which the available information from this investigation supports, then the services should not have been added to the Student’s IEP. However, it is noted on both the Amendment and the Prior Written Notice that ESY was at “Parent’s request” and not at the recommendation of the District or PPT. The provision of ESY services is the exception and not the rule for students receiving special education and related services. Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) guidance on Extended School Year Services dated March 17, 2007, states, “In summary, decisions regarding a child’s eligibility for ESY services are to be made on an individual basis based on the needs of the child. ESY services cannot be limited to children in particular disability categories. The type of service, amount of service and duration of the ESY program for eligible children is determined by the needs of each individual child who is eligible for ESY services. It is important to remember that both regression and non-regression criteria should be reviewed to determine a child’s eligibility for services and discussions regarding a child’s eligibility for ESY and what that program should look like should take place early enough to allow any dispute to be resolved before the beginning of the ESY program in order for the child to receive a FAPE”. The District fulfilled its requirements under 34 CFR § 300.106 as they reviewed the Student’s progress at a PPT meeting and determined that ESY services were not necessary for the provision of FAPE. If the PPT had determined that ESY was required to ensure FAPE, then they would also have been responsible for ensuring that ESY services were planned based on the Student’s individual needs and considered a continuum of placements in the LRE. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held that the LRE mandate applies to ESY in the same manner as it applies to school year placements. The Court opined that once a Student is determined to require ESY services, the District is then required to consider a continuum of alternative ESY placements and offer the least restrictive placement from that continuum appropriate for the Student’s needs. See, e.g., T.M. v. Cornwall Cent. Sch. Dist., 63 IDELR 31 (2d Cir. 2014). It is concluded that based on the PPT’s recommendation that the Student did not require ESY services and that ESY services were offered as an accommodation to the Parent, the District did not violate 34 CFR § 300.114 and 34 CFR § 300.115(a-b). No corrective action is required. The Amendment to the Student’s IEP which now recommends ESY services and indicates that those services are required for the Student to receive FAPE is not supported by the District’s ESY recommendation from the PPT meeting held on December 11, 2024, or the available data on or the available data on the Student’s performance and needs at that time. 34 CFR § 300.320 requires that an individualized education program (IEP) include a statement of the special education and related services and supplementary aids and services to be provided to the child to enable the child to advance appropriately toward attaining the annual goals. It is determined that the District is in violation of 34 CFR § 300.320 based on the inaccuracies in the Amendment to the IEP dated February 20, 2025. Corrective action is required. Issue 2: Upon review of the IEP for the Student’s annual review which also planned the Student’s three-year reevaluation, this investigator noted that the PPT meeting was held without a psychologist or related service provider. When asked about the members present at the PPT meeting, the District stated that it fulfilled the requirements of the IEP team as outlined in IDEA and the Parent agreed to the attendance excusal of the school psychologist. While the presence of a school psychologist when planning a student’s three-year reevaluation could be considered a best practice, the IDEA outlines the required members of the IEP team. The District was in compliance with the required team members which included the Parent, a general education teacher, a special education teacher, and a District administrator who met the requirements under 34 CFR 300.321(4)(i-iii). In addition, the special education teacher and/or the District supervisor of special education did in fact satisfy the requirement of an individual who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results. Therefore, the District was not in violation of 34 CFR § 300.321 at the Student’s PPT meeting held on December 11, 2024. No corrective action is required.

Corrective Action(s):

• The District must convene a PPT meeting as soon as possible, and no later than the last day of school for the 2024-2025 school year, to review the Student’s eligibility for ESY services. If the PPT determines that ESY services are not required to provide the Student with FAPE, then ESY services must be removed from the Student’s IEP. If the District determines that ESY services are required to provide the Student with FAPE, then the recommended ESY services are to be written in the Student’s IEP. The District must notify this investigator at jennifer.james@ct.gov once the PPT meeting has been held to allow for a review of documentation in CT-SEDS. The District may continue to offer ESY as a courtesy to the Parent even if the PPT determines that ESY services are not required to provide the Student with FAPE.