Complaint Summary

Date:

October 15, 2025

Case Number:

26-0081

Grade Level:

High school

Person filing complaint:

Surrogate Parent

School District:

Bridgeport Public Schools

Allegation(s):

• 34 CFR § 300.301(c)(1)(ii) and RCSA § 10-76d-13(a)(1) failure to implement the individualized education program within forty-five days of referral or notice, exclusive of the time required to obtain parental consent.
• 34 CFR § 300.304(c)(1) failure to ensure that assessments and other evaluation materials used to assess a child (i) are selected and administered so as not to be discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis; (ii) are provided and administered in the child’s native language or other mode of communication and in the form most likely to yield accurate information on what the child knows and can do academically, developmentally, and functionally, unless it is clearly not feasible to so provide or administer; (iii) are used for the purposes for which the assessments or measures are valid and reliable; (iv) are administered by trained and knowledgeable personnel; and (v) are administered in accordance with any instructions provided by the producer of the assessments.
• 34 CFR § 300.311(a) and RCSA §10-76d-9 failure to ensure that for each child suspected of having a specific learning disability, the documentation of the determination of eligibility must contain a statement of (1) whether the child has a specific learning disability; (2) the basis for making the determination, including an assurance that the determination has been made in accordance with §300.306(c)(1); (3) the relevant behavior, if any, noted during the observation of the child and the relationship of that behavior to the child’s academic functioning; (4) The educationally relevant medical findings, if any; (5) whether (i) the child does not achieve adequately for the child’s age or to meet State-approved grade-level standards consistent with §300.309(a)(1); and (ii)(A) the child does not make sufficient progress to meet age or State-approved grade-level standards consistent with §300.309(a)(2)(i); or (B) the child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, State-approved grade level standards or intellectual development consistent with §300.309(a)(2)(ii); (7) if the child has participated in a process that assesses the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention (i) the instructional strategies used and the student-centered data collected. Additionally, 34 CFR § 300.311(b) requires that each group member must certify in writing whether the report reflects the member’s conclusion. If it does not reflect the member’s conclusion, the group member must submit a separate statement presenting the member’s conclusions.
• 34 CFR § 300.613(a) and RCSA §10-76d-18 failure to provide parents with the right to inspect and review any education records relating to their child which are collected, maintained or used by the board of education. (1) A request to inspect and review a child’s records shall be in writing. The board of education shall comply with a request to review and inspect the child’s education records without unnecessary delay and before any meeting regarding an IEP or any due process hearing or resolution session held in accordance with the IDEA; otherwise, the board of education shall comply with such request not later than ten days of such request. (2) The parents’ right to inspect and review the child’s records shall include the right to one free copy of those records. A request for the free copy shall be made in writing. The board of education shall comply with such request not later than ten days of such request. 34 CFR § 300.308 failure to ensure that the determination of whether a child suspected of having a specific learning disability is a child with a disability as defined in §300.8, is made by the child’s parents and a team of qualified professionals.

Conclusion(s):

• Between the submission of the referral and the PPT meeting to determine eligibility, exclusive of the time to sign the consent for initial evaluation, over 60 days elapsed. The District was out of compliance with the 45-day timeline and therefore was in violation of 34 CFR § 300.301(c)(1)(ii) and RCSA § 10-76d-13(a)(1). Although the District selected the assessments, they simultaneously indicated in the PPT Record of Meeting that any future assessments should be conducted in the Student’s native language, presenting a contradiction. Additionally, the academic evaluation did not contain explicit documentation of all deviations from the standard administration procedure and the potential consequent impact on the estimation of achievement level. Therefore, the District is in violation of 34 CFR § 300.304(c)(1). The District’s completed Written Expression and Reading Worksheets failed to include instructional strategies and progress monitoring data, there is no documentation to provide the basis of the determination of ineligibility for a specific learning disability, and there is no certification in writing whether the report reflects each group member’s agreement with the conclusion. Therefore, the District is in violation of 34 CFR § 300.311, RCSA §10-76d-9, and §300.309(a). The District has been unable to provide evidence that it complied with the written request for educational records, which were required to be provided no later than ten days from the date of the request. Therefore, the District is in violation of 34 CFR § 300.613(a) and RCSA §10-76d-18. In consideration of the contradictory statements regarding the pre-determination of eligibility, and without a recording of the PPT meeting, there is no conclusive evidence to support either position. Therefore, the District is not in violation of 34 CFR § 300.308.

Corrective Action(s):

• The District is required to provide training for all special education staff and administrators in the building on the timeline for initial evaluations for special education. The District is required to provide training for all special education staff and administrators in the building on all laws and regulations related to the requirements and best practices when evaluating English language learners. The District must complete the Multidisciplinary Evaluation Report for Students Suspected of Having a Specific Learning Disability (MER) for the eligibility determination made at the PPT meeting. The District is required to provide training for training for all special education staff and administrators in the building on all laws and regulations related to the specific documentation for eligibility determinations, including the comprehensive completion of all worksheets. The District is required to provide training for the staff members involved in this case on the timelines for providing access to educational records.