Connecticut Technical Education and Career System 26-0485

Complaint Summary

Date Findings Report Sent:

May 8, 2026

Case Number:

26-0485

Grade Level:

High school

Person filing complaint:

Parent

School District:

Connecticut Technical Education and Career System

Allegation(s):

  1. The Complainant alleges that at a PPT meeting on April 30, 2025, the PPT made revisions to the Student’s IEP not based on the Student’s individual needs.According to the Complainant, the CTECS stated that it could not provide services and the service hours in the IEP due to “staffing limitations and scheduling constraints.”(34 CFR § 300.324(a)(1))
  2. The Complainant alleges that at a PPT meeting on February 6, 2026, the PPT relied on an evaluation from 2022 to consider the Student’s working memory, instead of the most recent evaluation, which was dated April 25, 2025.(34 CFR § 300.324(a)(1))
  3. The Complainant alleged that services and goals (executive functioning) were removed from the Student’s IEP outside a PPT meeting from April of 2025 through October of 2025.(34 CFR § 300.322 and RCSA § 10-76d-12)
  4. The Complainant alleges that the CTECS failed to convene a PPT meeting to revise the Student’s IEP when progress reports IEPs over the past year noted that the Student’s progress was being impacted by her absences.(34 CFR § 300.324(b)(1)(ii))
  5. The Complainant alleged that the CTECS failed to implement social-emotional services in the Student’s IEP throughout the past school year.(34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17(d), RCSA § 10-76d-1(a)(3))
  6. The Complainant alleged that the CTECS failed to implement a recommendation from a PPT meeting on October 31, 2025.(34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17(d), RCSA § 10-76d-1(a)(3))
  7. The Complainant alleged that on January 29, 2026, the Student’s math teacher failed to implement the Student’s accommodation of bathroom and nurse access.(34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17(d), RCSA § 10-76d-1(a)(3))
  8. The Complainant alleged that during the relevant time period of this complaint, the Student’s teachers have failed to allow the Student extra time on assignments, which is an accommodation in the Student’s IEP.(34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17(d), RCSA § 10-76d-1(a)(3))
  9. The Complainant alleges that on January 15, 2026, she made the school nurse aware of new medical issues that could impact the Student’s educational functioning and that the CTECS did not convene a PPT to review the Student’s IEP.(34 CFR § 300.324(b)(1)(ii))
  10. The Complainant alleges that the special education teacher was not at the PPT meeting on October 20, 2025.(34 CFR § 300.321 and RCSA § 10-76d-10)

Conclusion(s):

  1.  34 CFR § 300.324(a)(1) In developing each child’s IEP, the PPT must consider (i) the strengths of the child; (ii) the concerns of the parents for enhancing the education of their child; (iii) the results of the initial or most recent evaluation of the child; and (iv) the academic, developmental, and functional needs of the child. The substantial revisions to the Student’s IEP, including taking away all direct instruction and executive functioning services, were based on “programming and service delivery needs” of the CTECS, instead of the Student’s individual needs.  Therefore, the CTECS are found in violation of 34 CFR § 300.324(a)(1).
  2.  34 CFR § 300.324(a)(1) In developing each child’s IEP, the PPT must consider (i) the strengths of the child; (ii) the concerns of the parents for enhancing the education of their child; (iii) the results of the initial or most recent evaluation of the child; and (iv) the academic, developmental, and functional needs of the child.  The evidence reviewed shows that the PPT reviewed and had access to the 2025 evaluation at the PPT meeting on February 6, 2026.  While one member stated she had the wrong evaluation in front of her during the meeting, this does not negate the other evidence.  Therefore, no violation is found.
  3. 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).  The CTECS removed executive functioning services when it revised the IEP at the PPT meeting on April 30, 2025.  Therefore, no violation is found.
  4. 34 CFR § 300.324(b)(1)(ii) provides that the Planning and Placement Team revises the IEP, as appropriate, to address (A) any lack of expected progress toward the annual goals and in the general education curriculum; (B) the results of any reevaluation; (C) information about the child provided to, or by, the parents; and (D) the child’s anticipated needs.  The present levels in the Student’s IEPs and her progress report show a pattern of concern about the Student’s absences from school, as well as her absences from class while she did attend school.  Even though the PPT met frequently, it never made any substantial revisions to the IEP to specifically address the issues related to the Student’s attendance.  Additionally, the Student’s progress reports show that she made only satisfactory progress on one of her five goals, while she only made limited/minimal progress on all of her other goals, or they weren’t even introduced.  Despite this limited progress, the PPT still did not make any substantial revisions to the Student’s IEP at the PPT meeting in February of 2026.  Therefore, the District is found in violation of 34 CFR § 300.324(b)(1)(ii).    
  5. 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.  The evidence reviewed shows that the Student provided the counseling services as outlined in the Student’s IEP.  The IEP provided for counseling services 18 times a year on a flexible basis, based on the Student’s needs.  Therefore, the CTECS did not have to provide the counseling services on a specific schedule.  During the relevant time of the investigation, the CTECS had completed 8 counseling sessions, and have the remainder of the year to complete the other 10 sessions.  The Student also had access to a second counselor who she met with frequently.  Therefore, no violation of 34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17(d), RCSA § 10-76d-1(a)(3) is found.   
  6. 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.  The PPT discussed aligning the goals and objectives with the OWTS curriculum.  However, this was never formally a part of the IEP and therefore no violation of 34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17(d), RCSA § 10-76d-1(a)(3) is found.
  7. 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 tracking log shows that the teacher allowed the Student to leave class and use the bathroom.  Therefore, no violation of 34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17(d), RCSA § 10-76d-1(a)(3) is found.
  8. 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.  There is no evidence that the Student’s teachers did not allow the Student extra time on assignments, except for the comment made by the math teacher that he does not accept late work.  On the other hand, there is evidence that the math teacher allowed the Student to make up an assignment when she had previously received a zero.  Furthermore, the PPT recommended reopening Quarter 1 and Quarter 2 grades to allow the Student to make up missed work.  Therefore, no violation of 34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17(d), RCSA § 10-76d-1(a)(3) is found.
  9. 34 CFR § 300.324(b)(1)(ii) provides that the Planning and Placement Team revises the IEP, as appropriate, to address (A) any lack of expected progress toward the annual goals and in the general education curriculum; (B) the results of any reevaluation; (C) information about the child provided to, or by, the parents; and (D) the child’s anticipated needs.  The PPT recommended that the Student have an open pass to the bathroom at the PPT meeting on October 31, 2025, due to the Complainant’s concerns about the Student’s health issues.  After receiving further information about the Student’s medical condition, the CTECS convened a PPT within a reasonable time on February 6, 2026.  At this meeting, the PPT revised the Student’s IEP to include a “yellow” pass to allow her open access to the bathroom and access to the bathrooms in the nurse’s office and the library.  Therefore, no violation of 34 CFR § 300.324(b)(1)(ii) is found.
  10.  34 CFR § 300.321 and RCSA § 10-76d-10 sets forth the requirements regarding PPT membership.  The federal regulation requires that the PPT include, among other persons, a special education teacher.  The special education teacher must be a teacher of the child.  While it is true that the Special Education Department Head attended the PPT meeting on October 20, 2025, he is not a special education teacher for the Student and therefore the District violated 34 CFR § 300.321 and RCSA § 10-76d-10. 

Corrective Action(s):

  1. Before the end of the 2025-26 school year, the PPT must convene to review the Student’s IEP.The PPT must update the Student’s present levels and include evaluation data and not just anecdotal information.Services, as well as the goals and objectives shall be revised, as appropriate to align with the present levels.The PPT must also discuss any evaluations that may need to be conducted to further understand the Student’s individual needs.
  2. Before the end of the 2025-26 school year, the staff members who attended the PPT meeting on October 20, 2025, must review the requirements of PPT membership.
  3. On or before December 31, 2026, the District must provide the following compensatory education to the Student:
    1. 15 hours of individual math services;
    2. 10 hours of individual reading services;
    3. 18 hours of individual executive functioning services; and
    4. 5 hours of individual counseling services.
  4. On or before June 5, 2026, all administrators responsible for attending transition PPT meetings for special education students must review the Memorandum from the Bureau of Special Education and the CTECS entitled “CTECS Admission Process for Students Receiving Special Education Services,” dated May 7, 2026.