Complaint Summary

Date Findings Report Sent:

June 25, 2025

Case Number:

25-0339 and 25-0434 (Combined)

Grade Level:

High school

Person filing complaint:

Parent

School District:

Trumbull Public Schools (single student)

Allegation(s):

The Parent alleged that she made requests at a PPT meeting, and that the District refused the requests but did not provide prior written notice (34 CFR § 300.503 and RCSA §10-76d-8)

The Parent alleged that the District revised the counseling services in the Student’s IEP and the corresponding goals after the PPT meeting, without discussing it at the PPT meeting. (34 CFR § 300.322 and RCSA § 10-76d-12)

The Parent alleged that the Student’s IEP annual goal #16 (independent living) is unclear, and that the progress monitoring related to this goal has been inaccurate. (34 CFR § 300.320 and RCSA § 10-76d-11)

The Parent alleged that the District failed to implement the services required for the Student’s annual goal #16, objective #3. Specifically, the Parent stated that the objective would be implemented during the second quarter of the 2024-25 school year, even though it addressed issues the Student was experiencing during the first quarter of the school year. (34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17(d), RCSA § 10-76d-1(a)(3))

The Parent alleged that the District failed to implement the “autism consultant” services in the Student’s IEP during the 2024-25 school year. (34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17(d), RCSA § 10-76d-1(a)(3))

The Parent alleged that the District failed to provide the Parent with progress monitoring data for the Student’s counseling/social skills goals and objectives. The Parent requested this information on February 4, 2025. (RCSA § 10-76d-18)

The Parent alleged that the District failed to provide the Student’s IEP within five days after the PPT meeting. (RCSA § 10-76d-13(6) and RCSA § 10-76a-1(5))

Conclusion(s):

34 CFR § 300.503 and RCSA §10-76d-8 obligates a local board of education to provide parents of a child with a disability with written notice before the board refused to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child or the provision of a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) to the child. This notice must include a description of the action proposed or refused by the PPT, and explanation of why such PPT proposes or refuses to take the action, a description of each evaluation procedure, assessment, record, or report such board used a as a basis for the proposed or refused action, a statement that the parent of a child with a disability have protections under the procedural safeguards of IDEA and, if the written notice required is for the initial referral for evaluation, additional requirement. Additionally, the notice must include sources for parents to contact to obtain assistance in understanding the procedural safeguards of IDEA, a description of other options the PPT considered, and the reasons why those options were rejected, and a description of other factors that are relevant to the proposal or refusal. It is unclear from the records reviewed as part of this investigation whether the Parent made requests during the PPT meeting related to the three requests outlined in the written document given to the District prior to the PPT meeting. It is also unclear how extensively these issues were discussed during the PPT meeting. As written, the requests would not require PWN since the requests are not in a finalized form. The first request uses the word “considering” and the other requests require the District to provide the Parents with information for approval before moving forward. The District would not be required to provide PWN for these requests because, as written, these requests would not impact the provision of FAPE. Therefore, no violation of either 34 CFR § 300.503 or RCSA §10-76d-8 is found.

34 CFR § 300.322 and RCSA § 10-76d-12 provide that the planning and placement team (PPT), including the child's parents, are responsible for developing, reviewing, and, if appropriate, revising the child's individualized education program (IEP). Regardless of what was discussed at the PPT meeting in question, it is clear that the District stated to the Parent that it would amend the Student’s IEP to remove the new goal #19 until the Student’s annual review, but this never happened. Also, the school psychologist only described the goal in broad terms, i.e., “emotions” and “coping skills,” which did not provide enough information for the Parent to meaningfully participate in the PPT meeting. Therefore, a violation of 34 CFR § 300.322 and RCSA § 10-76d-12 is found and corrective action is required.

34 CFR § 300.320 and RCSA § 10-76d-11 provide that the IEP must include measurable annual goals and, in this state, short-term instructional objectives derived from those goals. The objectives must include objective criteria, evaluation procedures, and schedules for determining, regularly, whether the short-term objectives are being achieved. A review of the evidence in this case shows that the District violated 34 CFR § 300.320 and RCSA § 10-76d-11 when it included Annual Goal #16 in the Student’s IEP. It is unclear how the short-term objectives relate to acquiring the skills outlined in the goal. Additionally, the first short-term objectives are vague with regard to how the Student’s progress will be measured, by only having the Student complete a task. The third short-term objective includes language about scoring 80% on a rubric to measure progress, but the rubric completed by the Student was related to executive functioning and not independent living skills. Lastly, the progress reports contained inaccurate information, which calls into question the validity of the progress reporting for Annual Goal #16. Corrective action is required.

34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17(d), RCSA § 10-76d-1(a)(3) require each board of education to provide in a timely way special education and related services in accordance with the student’s IEP. A review of the Student’s progress reports and related documents show that the District failed to implement the services required for the same objective, as well as the entire annual goal and other two short-term objectives. (See finding of facts for Issues #4 and #5). The inaccuracies in the progress reporting, as well as the documentation in support of the progress reporting call into question the fidelity of the implementation of the services related to annual goal #16, and therefore a violation of 34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17(d), RCSA § 10-76d-1(a)(3) is found. As for the autism consultant, there is no evidence that the District conducted the team meetings in accordance with the Student’s IEP or that the autism consultant conducted any observations of the Student. Therefore, a violation of 34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17(d), RCSA § 10-76d-1(a)(3) is found. Corrective action is required.

Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) § 10-76d-18 provide that each board of education shall maintain records concerning children with disabilities or children referred for an evaluation to determine the child’s eligibility for special education and related services. Parents have the right to inspect and review any education records relating to their child that are collected, maintained, or used by the board of education. The parent’s right to inspect and review their child’s records includes the right to one free copy of those records. If a written request for the free copy is made, the board of education must comply with the request not later than 10 days of the request. According to RCSA Section 10-76a-1(5), “days” means school days unless otherwise specified. The Parent made a request for educational records, i.e., progress monitoring data on February 4, 2025. The District provided the Parent with the progress monitoring data on February 4, 2025, and therefore no violation of RCSA § 10-76d-18 is found.

Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) Section 10-76d-13(6) states that a full copy of the IEP shall be sent to the parents within five days after the PPT meeting to develop, review, or revise the IEP. “Days” means school days unless otherwise specified. RCSA Section 10-76a-1(5). Ten school days elapsed between the PPT meeting when the IEP was developed and when the Parent had access to the IEP in CT-SEDS. Since the District did not comply with the required timeline, a violation of RCSA Section 10-76d-13(6) is found. Corrective action is required.

Corrective Action(s):

It should be noted that our office recently issued another complaint report related to this Student which contained corrective actions that address some of the violations found in this investigation. Therefore, even though a violation may have been found, the corrective actions are not listed below.

 

As for the violations that were not addressed in previous complaint reports, the District is required to complete the following corrective actions: