Complaint Summary
Date Findings Report Sent
June 23, 2026
Case Number
26-0644
School District
East Hampton (single student)
Person filing complaint
parent
Grade Level
elementary
Allegation(s)
Issue 1: The Parents alleged that the District failed to appropriately implement the ‘access to para support’ accommodation from the Student’s December 4, 2025, IEP when unilaterally adding a change to the manner in which those supports were provided. (34 CFR § 300.17(d))
Issue 2: As outlined in the inquiry letter, this allegation was not investigated.
Issue 3: The Parent’s alleged that the District failed to ensure meaningful parent participation, in that the Parents were not provided with proposed changes to the Student’s IEP in order to prepare adequately for the Student’s February 2, 2026, PPT meeting. Special education regulations are specific in the requirements related to parent participation at PPT meetings therefore this allegation was investigated as related to that regulation. (34 CFR § 300.322)
Issue 4: The Parents alleged that the District predetermined a PPT decision to reinstate the Student’s 1:1 paraeducator support outside of the Student’s February 2, 2026, PPT meeting. The Parent’s alleged that this is evidenced by the District’s statement, “That’s what we are recommending as a school,” which, the Parents allege, is effectively identifying the school as an entity separate from the PPT, indicating that the recommendation was developed by the school outside of the PPT process. As a matter of record, a school district may engage in preparatory activities prior to the convening of a PPT to develop proposals or recommendations that will be discussed at the PPT meeting. (34 CFR § 300.320)
Issue 5: As outlined in the inquiry letter, this allegation was not investigated.
Issue 6: As outlined in the inquiry letter, this allegation was not investigated.
Issue 7: The Parents alleged that when adding the provision of a 1:1 paraeducator for the Student, the District failed to provide “independence goals or a fade plan”. This allegation represents a lack of the provision of FAPE in the behavioral area. Further, the Parents alleged that by implementing the provision of a 1:1 paraeducator before field testing the Student’s behavior intervention plan, there was no way to determine whether behavioral progress/regression could be attributed to BIP interventions or the presence of the 1:1 paraeducator. (34 CFR § 300.101)
Issue 8: The Parents alleged that the addition of a 1:1 paraeducator for the Student was overly restrictive and did not represent the Student’s LRE. (34 CFR § 300.114)
Conclusion(s)
Issue 1: 34 CFR § 300.17(d) requires that special education and related services are provided in conformity with an individualized education program (IEP).
The manner in which access to paraeducator support was to be provided was not specified in the Student’s December 4, 2025, IEP or memorialized in the associated PPT recommendations. Therefore, “access” may be provided in varied ways. The IEP did not require that a paraeducator be immediately present at all times; only that the Student was allowed to access a paraeducator when needed. Further, the use of a behavior chart for the Student does not represent a change in how this support was defined or delivered, since those elements were not included in the IEP. It was concluded that the District was not out of compliance with 34 CFR § 300.17(d). No corrective actions were issued.
Issue 3: Special education regulations are specific in the requirements related to parent participation at PPT meetings. 34 CFR § 300.322 requires that each school district must take steps to ensure that one or both of the parents of a child with a disability are present at each PPT meeting or are afforded the opportunity to participate including notifying parents of the meeting early enough to ensure that they will have an opportunity to attend; and scheduling the meeting at a mutually agreed on time and place. Such parental notice must indicate the purpose, time, and location of the meeting and who will be in attendance and inform the parents of the provisions relating to the participation of other individuals of the PPT who have knowledge or special expertise about the child. The determination of the knowledge or special expertise of any individual must be made by the party (parents or school district) who invited the individual to be a member of the PPT.
While the essence of the Parent’s allegation in the area of parent participation in the February 2, 2026, PPT meeting centered around their request to review proposed changes to the IEP which was requested but not received by them prior to the PPT, such data is not required under special education regulations. With that, the regulation related to parent participation in PPT meetings (34 CFR § 300.322), which was the applicable regulation in this case, was reviewed to determine if other types of regulated activities toward parent participation were complied with.
The District met the regulatory requirements of 34 CFR § 300.322, with one exception. The District acknowledged that the Notice of Planning and Placement Team Meeting for the Student’s February 2, 2026, PPT meeting did not include notice that the school Principal would be in attendance, although the Principal attended. The District indicated that this was a technical omission, however, this is also a procedural violation of 34 CFR § 300.322. Corrective actions were issued.
Issue 4: 34 CFR § 300.320 defines an individualized education program (IEP) as a written statement for each child with a disability that is developed, reviewed, and revised in a meeting that includes the PPT.
The Parents alleged that the District predetermined PPT decisions prior to the Student’s February 2, 2026, PPT meeting. The District did engage in a preparatory meeting prior to the Student’s February 2, 2026, PPT meeting to review data and develop proposals to be presented at that meeting. This is not prohibited or discouraged under IDEA. The Parents also requested stay put as a consequence of their disagreement with some PPT decisions. The right of ‘stay put’ applies only in the cases of a request for a due process hearing and does not apply during a PPT meeting. Further, all members of a PPT, including the parents, do not have to agree to PPT recommendations in order for those recommendations to be included in an IEP. In alignment with 34 CFR § 300.503, PWN is not required as related to the activities described. It was concluded that the District did not violate 34 CFR § 300.320. No corrective actions were issued.
Issue 7: 34 CFR § 300.101 requires that a school district must provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to all children residing in their school district. In order to do so, a school district must offer an IEP that is reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress that is appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.
The Parents alleged that when adding the provision of a 1:1 paraeducator for the Student, the District failed to provide independence goals / behavioral goals or a fade plan for the paraeducator support. A review of the Student’s records demonstrated that, prior to the December 4, 2025, PPT meeting when the Parents requested that counseling be removed from the Student’s IEP, goals which included skills related to independence and behavior were included in the Student’s IEP but were removed because they were primarily associated with the counseling services. While the Parents did not specifically request that such goals be removed from the IEP simply because they were associated with counseling services which were discontinued, the PPT recommendations clearly state, “[the Student] will not receive counseling at school, and parents asked that it be removed from her IEP. In addition, she will not have counseling goals or behavior goals on her IEP.” At that time, there was no objection to the removal of such goals.
Further, the implementation of the removal of such goals was scheduled for a delay of approximately 24 days in order to provide the Parents an opportunity to access their due process rights if they disagreed, which, at that time, they did not. The process by which this was undertaken by the District was reasonable and does not represent a violation of 34 CFR § 300.101. Additionally, the Student’s IEP recommendations include the statement, “Supplementary Aids and supports were reviewed and revisions were agreed upon including faded Para support in specials and hallway transitions,” therefore, a fade plan was included in the programming for the Student. Since the Parents remain unsatisfied with the plan for fading the paraeducator support or the execution of such plan, the District is similarly encouraged to review this at the Student’s next PPT meeting.
The Parents also alleged that the addition of a 1:1 paraeducator at the time of the Student’s February 2, 2026, PPT meeting was premature in that the District had not taken into account whether any potential improvement in the Student’s behavior could be attributed to the implementation of the Student’s BIP or whether it was due to the addition of a 1:1 paraeducator. Since the implementation of the Student’s BIP was previously discontinued at the December 2025, PPT meeting at the request of the Parents, it was not possible to have current data related to the impact of the BIP at the February 2, 2026, PPT meeting for consideration. With that, after the December 2025, PPT meeting, the Student was demonstrating behavior indicative of a potential need for additional support, therefore the February 2, 2026, PPT reviewed all available data to make a determination of what supports were appropriate for the Student’s success, which included the re-introduction of 1:1 paraeducator support. The process by which this was undertaken by the District was reasonable and does not represent a violation of 34 CFR § 300.101.
It was concluded that the District was not in violation of 34 CFR § 300.101. No corrective actions were issued.
Issue 8: 34 CFR § 300.114 requires that each LEA must ensure that, to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are nondisabled; and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only if the nature and severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.
In using the available data to review the Student’s performance and behavior after the December 4, 2025, PPT meeting which, at the Parent’s request, reduced the amount of data collected as well as the implementation of behavioral supports such as a BIP and 1:1 adult support to the Student through the IEP, this investigator has determined that the process used by the February 2, 2026, PPT to review and revise the Student’s IEP was reasonable and met the expectations of 34 CFR § 300.114. Therefore, the District was not out of compliance with 34 CFR § 300.114, No corrective actions were issued.
Corrective Action(s)
Required Corrective Actions:
- On or before September 30, 2026, the District shall provide training to appropriate staff regarding the notice to parents of PPT meeting participants and convening such meeting if there is a change to the participants that were noticed to the parents.
- The District shall determine the appropriate staff to include in such training.
- The District shall determine the format by which such training is delivered, (e.g., on-line/virtual session, via memorandum, in-person, etc.)
- Included in the content of such training shall be a review of
- Chapter 3 of the Model Special Education Procedures and Practices Manual 2026 (section related to Notice of PPT Meeting) Chapter 3: Planning and Placement Team (PPT) Members, and the following:
- In cases when one or more PPT participant(s) is/are asked to attend a PPT meeting by the District and that/those participant(s) was/were not included in the Notice of PPT Meeting to the parents, the District may request that the parents waive their right to five-school-day prior notice and consent to the participation of that/those individual(s) in the meeting. If consent is granted, then the meeting may be convened as scheduled, a new Notice of PPT Meeting must be developed which includes the additional participant(s), and the additional participant(s) must be listed as members of the PPT on the corresponding IEP.
- In cases when one or more PPT participant(s) is/are asked to attend a PPT meeting by the District and that/those participant(s) was/were not included in the Notice of PPT Meeting to the parents and the parents do not consent to waive their right to prior notice or consent to the participation of that/those individual(s) in the meeting, the meeting may not be convened as scheduled. In such case, the District must reschedule the meeting and re-notice the parents with the additional participant(s) included in that notice.
- Chapter 3 of the Model Special Education Procedures and Practices Manual 2026 (section related to Notice of PPT Meeting) Chapter 3: Planning and Placement Team (PPT) Members, and the following:
- Upon completion of the training, the District shall provide an attestation to the State that such training has been completed.