Complaint Summary
Date Findings Report Sent:
April 10, 2026
Case Number:
26-0430
Grade Level:
Elementary school
Person filing complaint:
Parent
School District:
East Haven Public Schools
Allegation(s):
Issue 1: The Parent alleged that as of February 13, 2026, the District had not fulfilled record requests submitted in writing on January 16, 2026, and January 26, 2026. (RCSA § 10-76d-18)
Issue 2: The Parent alleged that the Student was secluded on January 15, 2026, and that, at the time of filing the state complaint, the District had not provided documentation for the seclusion. The Parent further claimed that the Student was allegedly secluded with another peer and was pushed by staff during the seclusion. The Parent alleged that she did not receive all of the required documentation following restraints and seclusions that occurred in January 2026. (CGS § 10-236b)
Issue 3: The Parent alleged that the Student did not make meaningful progress on his IEP goals and objectives and the District did not convene a PPT meeting to revise the IEP to address a lack of expected progress. (34 CFR § 300.324(b)(ii))
Issue 4: The Parent alleged that the Student has not received speech and language services during the 2025-2026 school year in accordance with his IEP. The Parent further alleged that the Student’s behavior intervention plan from 2024 has not been implemented or revised. (34 CFR § 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17 and RCSA § 10-76d-1(a)(1))
Issue 5: The Parent alleged that the District did not provide a full copy of the Student’s IEP for the PPT meetings held on January 9, 2026, and January 29, 2026, within five school days. (RCSA § 10-76d-13(a)(6))
Issue 6: The Parent alleged that her request for an out of district placement was denied at the PPT meeting held on January 29, 2026, and she was not provided with Prior Written Notice indicating the District’s refusal. (34 CFR § 300.503)
Issue 7: The Parent alleged that the Student does not have academic goals and objectives in his IEP despite academic concerns. (34 CFR § 300.320(a)(2))
Conclusion(s):
Issue 1:
The District failed to comply with the request from the Parent to inspect and review the Student’s education records without delay as it relates to the viewing of the video and the incident reports from the restraint and seclusion that occurred on January 15, 2026. Therefore, the District was in violation of RCSA § 10-76d-18. Corrective action is required.
Issue 2:
Statements that the Student was disrobing in the main hallway and exposing himself were not supported by the video footage shared by the District. The video footage confirmed that the Student was running down the hallway without his shirt on, but his body language never suggested that he was attempting to further disrobe. Furthermore, the Student running away was precipitated by a staff member grabbing the Student and removing items the Student had put in his pants. Running down the hallway without a shirt on does not meet the definition of immediate or imminent risk of injury to the student or others. Therefore, it is concluded that the District was in violation of Connecticut General Statute (CGS) § 10-236b(b) when the Student was restrained and forcibly escorted from the main hallway and then subsequently secluded on January 15, 2026. Corrective action is required.
A review of documentation confirmed that the staff administering restraints and seclusions had received training on the proper means for performing such physical restraint or seclusion in accordance with the statute. Therefore, the District is not in violation of Connecticut General Statute (CGS) § 10-236b(h).
The Parent was provided with notification of the forcible escort that occurred on January 15, 2026, on January 16, 2026. The Parent was provided with notification of the seclusion that occurred on January 15, 2026, on February 13, 2026. The Parent was not provided with notification of the restraint that occurred prior to the forcible escort and restraint that was observed on the video footage by this investigator on January 15, 2026. Discrepancies are noted between the timestamps on the video footage and the incident reports created by the District. The Student is observed to enter seclusion at 10:54am. The incident report noted that the seclusion began at 11:00am and ended at 11:10am. Furthermore, the District’s position that the school and the seclusion room do not have clocks and that the reported times on the incident reports were estimated calls into question the accuracy of notification to parents of incidents of seclusion or restraint. The District was in violation of Connecticut General Statute (CGS) § 10-236b(h) which requires the District to notify a parent or guardian of a student who is placed in physical restraint or seclusion not later than twenty-four hours after the restraint and seclusion on January 15, 2026. The District was also in violation of RCSA § 10-76b-11 which requires the reporting of physical restraint and seclusion to be done on an incident report that contains the information and documentation required by sections 46a-152 and 46a-153 of the Connecticut General Statutes no later than the school day following the incident. Corrective action is required.
Furthermore, the District is required to convene a PPT meeting following 4 seclusions or restraints in twenty school days in accordance with the Connecticut General Statute § 10-36b(a)(7)(f) which provides that in the event that physical restraint or seclusion is used on a student four or more times within twenty school days, if such student is a child requiring special education, or a child being evaluated for eligibility for special education and awaiting a determination, such student's planning and placement team shall convene for the purpose of (A) conducting or revising a behavioral assessment of the student, and (B) creating or revising any applicable behavioral intervention plan, including, but not limited to, such student's individualized education plan. While a PPT meeting was held on January 29, 2026, following four restraints and seclusions in twenty days, there is no mention of the review on the Notice of PPT Meeting, or discussion of such in the IEP. The District did not conduct or revise a behavioral assessment or update the Student’s BIP. Therefore, the District was in violation of CGS § 10-36b(a)(7)(f). Corrective action is required.
When the Student was secluded on January 15, 2026, there was another student in the seclusion room. RCSA § 10-76b-8(h)(4) clearly defines that any room used for seclusion of a person at risk shall be free of any object that poses a danger to the person at risk who is being placed in the room. Two students in a seclusion who are by definition of “seclusion” considered to be at immediate or imminent risk of injury to self or others violates RCSA § 10-76b-8(h)(4). Corrective action is required. While in seclusion, the Student was pushed by a staff member. While it is outside of the scope of the state complaint process, it is noted that the staff member pushing the Student was reported to the Department of Children and Families (DCF) by the school, the Parent, and this investigator.
Issue 3:
From the start of the 2025-2026 school year through the filing of this state complaint, the District convened two PPT meetings, both in January 2026. On January 9, 2026, a PPT meeting was convened at the Parent’s request. On January 29, 2026, the District convened the Student’s annual review PPT meeting. Based on a review of the Student’s progress on his IEP goals and objectives, progress was inconsistently reported through the timeframe and progress reports on IEP goals and objectives contained previous data from prior to the 2025-2026 school year. On October 31, 2025, following the first marking period, the progress report on IEP goals and objectives indicated that the Student was making Limited progress on his Social/Emotional goal with Behavior and Communication progress not reported. An additional progress report was issued on November 18, 2025, which reverted back to ESY data and progress for the Social/Emotional goal and identified satisfactory progress on the Behavior goal with no update on the Communication goals. On January 28, 2026, following the second marking period and the day before the Student’s annual review PPT meeting, the progress report on IEP goals and objectives again provided ESY data and progress for the Social/Emotional goal, identified satisfactory progress on the Behavior goal with no update on the Communication goals. The classroom teacher’s report dated January 29, 2026, the date of annual review PPT meeting, indicated that the Student had made limited progress on the Social/Emotional goal and noted that for the Behavior goal, objectives 1 and 2 were mastered and objective 3 was satisfactory progress although regression on the skill was noted.
The inconsistencies in the progress reports on IEP goals and objectives call into question not only the Student’s progress but the fidelity of progress monitoring. The District is found to be in violation of 34 CFR § 300.324(b)(ii) as they did not revise the IEP to address any lack of expected progress toward the annual goals and in the general education curriculum prior to the Student’s annual review PPT meeting in which he did not master his goals and objectives. Corrective action is required.
Issue 4:
With regard to the Student’s speech and language services, the District is in violation of 34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17 and RCSA § 10-76d-1(a)(1) as the Student’s school did not have a speech-language pathologist assigned to provide IEP services from the start of the 2025-2026 school year. The District noted at the Student’s annual review that as of January 29, 2026, the Student was owed 600 minutes of speech and language service. Corrective action is required.
With regard to the Student’s BIP, the responsible staff did not identify any consistent training specific to the implementation of the Student’s BIP, the BIP itself is two years old, and the 10 days of data tracking for the first half of the school year included targeted behaviors that are not included in the Student’s BIP. Furthermore, the two interventions identified by District staff are also not included in the Student’s BIP. The lack of staff training and progress monitoring data leads to the conclusion that the Student’s BIP was not implemented with fidelity from the start of the 2025-2026 school year through the filing of this state complaint. Therefore, the District is in violation of 34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17 and RCSA § 10-76d-1(a)(1). Corrective action is required.
Issue 5:
The IEP dated January 9, 2026, was not finalized and made available to the Parent until February 6, 2026. The District’s reasoning for the late IEP was that the case manager was unaware that IEP documentation was required following a PPT meeting held to review or revise an IEP. Therefore, the District was in violation of RCSA § 10-76d-13(a)(6) for not providing the Parent with a full copy of the IEP within five school days after the PPT meeting. Corrective action is required.
The IEP dated January 29, 2026, was not finalized and made available to the Parent until February 26, 2026. Therefore, the District was in violation of RCSA § 10-76d-13(a)(6) for not providing the Parent with a full copy of the IEP within five school days after the PPT meeting. The District’s reasoning for the late IEP was that the IEP from the PPT meeting held on January 9, 2026, was still in draft form and therefore the IEP from January 29, 2026, could not be finalized. Furthermore, there were internal staff conflicts and discussion on who would be responsible for finalizing the IEP which led to further delay. Corrective action is required.
Issue 6:
RCSA § 10-76d-8 requires that written notice shall be given to the parents of a student with a disability a reasonable time before the PPT proposes or refuses to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of a child with a disability or a child who may have a disability or the provision of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to a child with a disability. Written notice may be provided to the parents at the PPT meeting where such PPT proposes to, or refuses to, initiate or change the child’s identification, evaluation, or educational placement or the provision of a free appropriate public education to the child. If such notice is not provided at the PPT meeting, it shall be provided to the parents not later than ten days before the PPT proposes to make such change.
Prior Written Notice (PWN) is intended to provide the Parent with written notice of actions proposed and/or refused by the District. The District is obligated to provide separate PWNs for each proposed or refused action related to identification, evaluation, educational placement, or provision of FAPE to a child. The District generated the draft Prior Written Notice for the PPT meeting held on January 29, 2026, on February 25, 2026. The Prior Written Notice was finalized on February 26, 2026, and was then available to the Parent. Therefore, the District was in violation of 34 CFR § 300.503. Corrective action is required.
Issue 7:
Based on the Student’s present levels of academic functioning, and the classroom teacher’s report of inconsistent participation in academics, the PPT should have reconvened to address not only the behavior challenges that were impacting the Student’s daily functioning that result from the Student’s disability but also the significant academic concerns that were not being addressed in the classroom or through specialized instruction. The District was in violation of 34 CFR § 300.320(a)(2) as it relates to the requirement that an IEP contains measurable goals, including academic and functional goals designed to meet the child’s need that result from the child’s disability.
Significant concerns are noted throughout the investigation regarding the classroom teacher’s insufficient data, progress monitoring, service delivery, reporting, and her statement that she inherited an IEP and assumed that outdated end dates for objectives were errors. It is the case manager, and in this case the classroom teacher’s, responsibility to ensure that the Student’s IEP is accurate and up to date at all times. Discrepancies noted between the classroom teacher’s report at the PPT meeting on January 29, 2026, that the Student knew 11 letters and sounds, the present levels of academic performance in the IEP dated January 29, 2026, that the Student knew could identify 21 out of 26 letters and sounds, and the academic data provided to this investigator that the Student could identify 23 out of 26 letters lead to further concerns.
Corrective Action(s):
- The District must identify and appoint a dedicated lead staff member to manage the required corrective actions items for this state complaint and provide a monthly update to this investigator on the progress of all the corrective action items. The name and contact information for the lead staff member shall be forwarded to this investigator no later than April 30, 2026.
- The District must establish a procedure for building staff upon receipt of a request for records. The procedure as well as signatures following its review with building administration must be sent to this investigator no later than May 22, 2026.
- The District must engage its Board counsel to provide comprehensive training to all staff including administrators at the Student’s school on the laws pertaining to seclusion and restraint including what constitutes immediate or imminent risk of injury and the requirements of convening a PPT meeting following four or more restraints or seclusions in twenty days. The contents of the training and staff signatures and dates must be provided to this investigator no later than May 22, 2026.
- The District must document the restraint that occurred on January 15, 2026, at 10:52am. The incident report of emergency restraint must be finalized in CT-SEDS and provided to the Parent no later than April 22, 2026.
- The staff member who restrained and secluded the Student on January 15, 2026, must again complete the full day physical management training (not the half day refresher) by the end of the 2025-2026 school year. Documentation of the retraining must be sent to this investigator no later than June 30, 2026.
- The District must at minimum install a clock in the main hallway of the school in proximity to the seclusion room to assist with accurate reporting of the start and end times of seclusions and restraints. Additional clocks should be considered throughout the building. Documentation of the installation of clocks must be sent to this investigator no later than July 31, 2026.
- The District must create and provide a compensatory education plan for the Student in the area of Reading, Mathematics, and Social/Emotional/Behavior. The Student is to receive 20 hours of compensatory hours for each area for a total of 60 hours of compensatory education. The Student must also receive the 660 minutes (11 hours) of speech and language services that were not provided due to a vacant position. A copy of this plan must be provided to this investigator no later than May 22, 2026. The District must provide this office with monthly updates on the delivery of services until the compensatory education hours are delivered in full beginning on June 1, 2026. All services under the compensatory education plan must be delivered on or before December 31, 2026.
If the Parent feels that such compensatory services would be overly burdensome or stressful to the student, the Parent, in collaboration with the District, through the PPT process, may determine an alternate number of compensatory service hours or identify alternative compensatory service strategies, methods or programs to compensate the Student which must be reported to the CSDE. - The District must conduct an updated Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) and create a new, updated Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP) without delay. Documentation of progress from obtaining parental consent through reviewing the FBA and BIP at a PPT meeting, must be sent to this investigator at the start of each month beginning on May 1, 2026.