Complaint Summary

Date Findings Report Sent

July 6, 2026

Case Number

26-0675

School District

Groton Public Schools

Person filing complaint

Parent

Grade Level

Middle School

Allegation(s)

Issue: The Parent claims the District did not meet the initial evaluation timeline. (RCSA Section 10-76d-13(a))

Conclusion(s)

As permitted by federal regulation 34 CFR §300.301, the Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) established a State timeline for the completion of initial evaluations. Pursuant to Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies §10-76d-13, once a district receives a written referral for special education evaluation, it has 45 school days to complete an initial evaluation, exclusive of the time required to obtain parental consent, and where appropriate, implement the IEP. The State timeline encompasses the entire eligibility determination process including reviewing the referral, obtaining written parental consent for evaluation, conducting a comprehensive evaluation, determining eligibility, obtaining written parental consent for the provision of special education services and implementing an IEP if the student is found eligible. Here, the referral was received on February 26, 2026, and consent to conduct the initial evaluation was provided the next day on February 27, 2026. The PPT District did not meet to review the initial evaluation until June 3, 2026 well beyond the 45-school day timeline.

In its response to the complaint inquiry letter, the District referred to the CT State Department of Education’s Evaluation Timeline User Guide (11/1/2021) as support for its position that an allowable excuse for failing to meet the 45 -day timeline is a documented request by a parent to reschedule or delay the eligibility determination PPT meeting after agreeing to attend at a particular time and date. Reliance on the user guide as a defense to the complaint’s claim is misplaced. The referenced user guide concerns federal data reporting requirements and does not replace federal and state special education regulations. There are no allowable excuses for failing to meet the timeline for the completing of initial evaluations. The timeline is longer if the IEP calls for an out-of-district placement. Additionally, as a factual matter, the Parent did not ask to reschedule or delay the May 1, 2026, PPT meeting. It is true the Parent’s attorney acknowledged the likelihood that the District would want to reschedule the meeting to allow its attorney to attend given the fact that the Parent would be represented and seemed to be in agreement with the meeting being rescheduled. While this courtesy is commonly extended, the parties cannot agree to extend a timeline that is legally required.

Corrective Action(s)

Required Corrective Action: None

While the District failed to meet the timeline to review the initial evaluation and implement an IEP if the Student had been found eligible for services, no corrective action is required. There is no indication the District is not aware of the timeline and so, no training is needed. Further, as the Student was not found eligible for special education services, it is not necessary to consider if compensatory education is appropriate to address any educational harm that may have resulted from the delay in reviewing the initial evaluation.