Complaint Summary

Date Findings Report Sent:

August 12, 2025

Case Number:

25-0709

Grade Level:

High school

Person filing complaint:

Parent

School District:

Westport Public Schools

Allegation(s):

• Issue 1: The Complainant alleges that this change in communication protocol and restriction from speaking to other members of the Student’s educational team substantially undermines the Parent’s ability to meaningfully participate in the Student’s educational program and the provision of FAPE to the Student. (34 CFR § 300.101(c)(1))
• Issue 2: The Complainant alleged that the Student had not been allowed to attend his classes as scheduled with non-disabled peers as required by his IEP. (34 CFR § 300.17(d))

Conclusion(s):

• As related to Issue 1, in considering the results of investigation into the impact of the communication protocol, it is clear that, while the communication protocol was certainly a change in format and pace for the Parents, it did not substantially undermine the Parent’s ability to meaningfully participate in the Student’s educational program as alleged. Further, based on the Student’s educational progress, the District provided FAPE to the Student. It was concluded that the District was not in violation of 34 CFR § 300.101(c)(1). No corrective actions were issued.
• As related to Issue 2, in reviewing the Student’s communication log to determine to what degree the Student attended, or was being restricted from, each of the settings in question, and in review of the practice used to determine if the Student would attend each individual class, along with the protocol set up for the Student’s safety plan, it became clear that on a daily basis, and a class-by-class basis, at the time that each class was to begin, the Student was offered the opportunity to attend that class, in alignment with his schedule and as required by his IEP. At times, the Student would indicate that he was not going to attend, and that choice was honored by staff. Other times, the Student would choose to attend and, after a portion, sometimes chose to leave and go to an alternate setting to complete work. Still other times, the student chose to attend, became overstimulated, at which time elements of his safety plan were employed or possibly emergency restraint or seclusion occurred. In each scenario, there was a reflection of his IEP being implemented appropriately, not restrictions of the Student’s time with non-disabled peers. It was concluded that the District was not in violation of 34 CFR § 300.17(d). No corrective actions were issued.

Corrective Action(s):

• No required corrective actions.