Teacher of the Year Ceremony
Due to inclement weather, the Teacher of the Year Ceremony has been postponed to December 16, 2025 from 5-7pm. Doors will open at 4pm. The Ceremony will take place at the Bushnell Theater in Hartford, and the order of events will remain the same.

Stamford 25-0666

Complaint Summary

Date:

September 25, 2025

Case Number:

25-0666

Grade Level:

Elementary

Person filing complaint:

Parent

School District:

Stamford Public Schools

Allegation(s):

  • Issue 1: The Parents alleged that the District violated the Student’s right to be educated in her least restrictive environment by recommending, at a PPT meeting held on May 1, 2025, a specialized program in a more restrictive environment without data to support the recommendation and prior to the implementation of the behavioral intervention plan in the Student’s current school. 34 CFR § 300.114
  • Issue 2: The Parents alleged that the District predetermined the Student’s placement without parental participation, solely based on disability category, and only offered one specialized program for the Student. 34 CFR § 300.501 and 34 CFR § 300.115(a-b)
  • Issue 3: The Parents alleged that the District has not consistency or meaningfully integrated the Student’s Assistive Technology into her learning environment as outlined in her IEP. The Parents further alleged that there has been no data shared with them on the implementation, progress monitoring or adjustments as needed to the Assistive Technology tool. 34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17(d), and RCSA § 10-76d-1(a)(1)

Conclusion(s):

  • Issue 1: Since the filing of the state complaint, the District reconvened a PPT meeting on August 22, 2025. The District recommended a trial placement for diagnostic purposes in the self-contained specialized program that the Parent alleged violated the Student’s right to be educated in her least restrictive environment. The Parent signed consent for the trial placement for diagnostic purposes in the self-contained specialized program on August 22, 2025. The recommendation for the Student’s placement in the specialized program for the 2025-2026 school year made at the PPT meeting held on May 1, 2025, was never implemented. Therefore, there is no potential violation of state or federal special education law for the complaint process to investigate. No further action was taken on Issue 1.
  • Issue 2: The Parent expressed their disagreement with the recommendation of the self-contained specialized classroom at the PPT meetings held on May 7, 2024, and May 1, 2025. In response to the Parent’s disagreement with the self-contained specialized program for the 2024-2025 school year, the District agreed to the Parent’s request to retain the Student and recommended special education and related services in the general education and resource and related services settings for the 2024-2025 school year. In response to the Parent’s disagreement with the self-contained specialized program for the 2025-2026 school year, the District reconvened the PPT meeting and recommended a diagnostic placement for trial purposes in the self-contained specialized program. It is also noted that the Parent was present at both of the PPT meetings. Therefore, it is determined that the District did not violate 34 CFR § 300.501 as the parent was a member of the group that made decisions about their child’s educational placement. In response to the Parent’s disagreement with the recommended self-contained program at the PPT meeting held on May 7, 2024, the District recommended special education and related services in the general education and resource and related services settings which included increasing the frequency of the Student’s services and decreasing the student to staff ratio for Reading and Mathematics instruction for the 2024-2025 school year. The Student continued to receive paraeducator support throughout her day. The District convened five PPT meetings between May 7, 2024, and May 1, 2025. A review of the Student’s Progress Reports on IEP Goals and Objectives indicated that the Student made inconsistent progress and did not master 12 out of 16 goals at her annual review on May 1, 2025, when the recommendation for the self-contained specialized program was made for the second time. The District programmed in the general education setting with supplemental aides and services and based on the Student’s limited progress on IEP goals and objectives, continued to recommend the self-contained specialized classroom based on the Student’s progress in the general education setting and therefore not based solely on the Student’s disability. It is determined that the District did not violate 34 CFR § 300.115(a-b) requiring each public agency to ensure that a continuum of alternative placements is available to meet the needs of children with disabilities for special education and related services. No corrective action is required.
  • Issue 3: The Parent acknowledges that the District trained staff and implemented the apps recommended by the assistive technology consultation report. The assistive technology consultation report clearly stated that assistive technology was not an ongoing related service, but an accommodation. In the absence of specific data for the individual apps, it is unclear the level of the Student’s use of the tablet.

Corrective Action(s):

  • Required Correction Action: The District must review with the Student’s special education team from the 2024-2025 school year the requirements of the LRE checklist. A copy of the review along with staff signatures and date must be sent to this investigator no later than October 24, 2025. The District must also submit evidence of the District’s awareness of this requirement either in their District procedures or policies and that PPT administrators/chairs/designees understand the requirement. Recommendations: It is strongly recommended that the District provide an AT update to review the existing accommodation and any updated or relevant needs in order to ensure effective use of the tablet as an assistive technology device. It is strongly recommended that the District ensure that any completed work on the tablet is documented through downloads, emails, screenshots, etc. for the purposes of monitoring and adjusting the existing apps on the tablet as well as monitoring the use of assistive technology to progress toward mastery of relevant IEP goals and objectives. While the District is not found to be in violation of 34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17(d), and RCSA § 10-76d-1(a)(1) as the Student was provided access to the tablet as an accommodation and no corrective action is required, recommendations are made below.