Complaint Summary

Date Findings Report Sent

May 15, 2026

Case Number

26-0524

School District

Groton Public Schools

Person filing complaint

Parent

Grade Level

Middle School

Allegation(s)

Issue 1: The Parent alleges a Section 504 meeting was scheduled for February 26, 2026, but on the day of the meeting, the District informed the Parent the meeting was instead going to be convened as a planning and placement team (PPT) meeting pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The Parent alleges she was not provided prior notice of the PPT meeting and was pressured into waiving her rights to prior notice of the meeting by District staff. (34 CFR Section 300.322; RCSA Section 10-76d-12)

Issue 2: The Parent claims the District implemented a trial placement for diagnostic purposes without obtaining parental consent. (RCSA Section 10-76d-14)

Issue 3: The Parent claims the District failed to provide her with a copy of the IDEA procedural safeguards prior to the Student’s referral to determine the Student’s eligibility for special education and related services. (34 CFR Section 300.504)

Conclusion(s)

Issue 1: It is concluded the meeting held on February 26, 2026, should not have proceeded as a PPT meeting because, as documented in the Parentsquare communications which were exchanged less than 2 hours before a scheduled Section 504 meeting, the Parent made clear she was not waiving her right to five days notice of a PPT meeting. Parentsquare communication, like emails or text messages, often fail to communicate the full details of a situation. Here, in short conclusive messages, the Parent and District failed to reach an understanding about the meeting; the Parent wanted to meet to discuss the Student but did not waive her right to prior notice of a PPT meeting; the District didn’t respond or acknowledge the Parent’s request for an informal meeting but instead replied a waiver was required or the meeting would be rescheduled. In one exchange, the Parent seemed to decide to agree with going ahead with a PPT meeting as she understood no final decisions would be made. If a conclusion were reached that the Parent ultimately gave in and agreed to go ahead with the meeting as a PPT, it would have to be concluded the decision was not voluntary. It is concluded the District failed to provide the Parent with prior notice of the PPT meeting held on February 26, 2026, as required under state and federal special education requirements. Corrective action is required, see below.

Additionally, while the District did not take the position in this investigation that the DCF caseworker provided a valid waiver of the right to prior notice of the PPT meeting, it is important to note that the caseworker was not authorized to provide consent for any action related to the Student’s education. Under IDEA, the term “parent” specifically excludes the State if the child is a ward of the State. In such a case, a surrogate parent would be assigned to represent the child’s educational interests. Here, the Student was not a ward of the State and the Parent retained education rights under IDEA.

Issue 2: It is concluded the District initiated the trial placement before obtaining parental consent for the evaluation in violation of the IDEA. Trial placement for diagnostic purposes is not a special education placement; it is an evaluation. The trial placement began on March 2, 2026, when the Student was placed in the trial placement, a self-contained class. This was the next school day after the Parent provided consent for the initial evaluation and eight days before the Parent consented to the trial placement. While the Parent shared her positive impressions of the placement with staff, such statements do not amount to consent. Corrective action is required, see below.

Issue 3: A copy of IDEA procedural safeguards must be given to a parent upon initial referral, and upon parental request, among other times. The District provided this investigator a copy of an email documenting that the procedural safeguards were sent as an attachment to the Parent on February 26, 2026. The Parent reports in her complaint the safeguards were not “enclosed” on the February notices (Parent Notice of Referral and Notice of PPT Meeting) that she received. It is concluded, based on the email submitted by the District, that the District sent the Parent a copy of the procedural safeguards upon the initial referral of the Student as an attachment to an email and again upon the Parent’s March 20, 2026 request. No violation is found and no corrective action is required.

Corrective Action(s)

Required Corrective Actions:

1. Not later than end of the current school year, The District is required to provide training to District staff who have a role in scheduling and chairing PPT meetings at the middle school level on parents’ procedural protections under the IDEA including parental consent and notice provisions. The training should include best practices to be followed when discussing procedural safeguards with parents to ensure the parents’ concerns are understood. Documentation of who provided the training, who attended, and the training materials must be sent to this office.
2. A PPT meeting that complies with IDEA notice and consent requirements to discuss the Student’s education program and placement must be convened no later than June 25, 2026. This office will monitor compliance with this corrective action through CT-SEDS.