Hamden Public Schools 26-0364

Issue 1: While CGS § 10-76d(a)(10)(G) requires the District to provide the results of the assessments and evaluations used in the determination of eligibility for special education at least three school days before the PPT meeting at which the results of the assessments and evaluations will be discussed for the first time, it also notes that the District is required to provide the results three days before the PPT upon request by a parent.  There is no evidence that prior to December 17, 2025, the Parent requested the evaluation results to be shared with her three days prior to the PPT meeting schedule for December 19, 2025.  On December 17, 2025, at 3:02pm, the Parent messaged the school psychologist asking if he had written the report yet and if he could give her a call.  The school psychologist responded at 8:46pm, stating that he was still working on the report and that he would give her a call the next day.  With the exception of the psychological evaluation, the assessments and evaluations conducted as part of the initial evaluation were shared with the Parent at 8:57am on December 18, 2025.  In the absence of evidence that the Parent requested the results of the assessments and evaluations at least three school days before the PPT meeting held on December 19, 2025, it is concluded that the District did not violate CGS § 10-76d(a)(10)(G).

 

With regard to the psychological evaluation, the District cited that the Parent’s delay in completing rating scales and the Student’s absences resulted in the evaluation report not being written by the PPT meeting on December 19, 2025.  The District received consent to conduct the initial evaluation on October 10, 2025.  The school psychologist conducted testing on December 4, 5, 10, 11, and 16, 2025.  While the Student was absent 10 times between the start of tutoring on November 6, 2025, through the date of the PPT meeting on December 19, 2025, he was also in attendance for 9 school days in October 2025 at his District school and approximately 7 days in November for tutoring at Central Office.  It is not unreasonable to conclude that the Student’s testing should have begun prior to December 4, 2025, given the initial evaluation timeline.  See the recommendation below.

 

Issue 2: Although the Parent disagreed with the determination that the Student was not eligible for special education and related services, there is evidence that the District drew upon information from a variety of sources, including the initial evaluation reports which included standardized assessments, rating scales completed by the Parent, staff, and Student, Parent and Student interviews, a review of records, observations, and a risk assessment.  The initial evaluation included assessment of the Student’s emotional and behavioral needs.  The PWN dated December 19, 2025, noted Parent input, teacher/staff input, and agency input.  The Planning and Placement Team worksheet to Determine Eligibility for Special Education Due to an Emotional Disability was completed at the PPT meeting and did not identify any characteristics as having an adverse effect on educational performance.  While emotional and behavioral concerns were noted in the social developmental history and the psychological evaluation, the District maintained that the concerns were outside of school and did not have an adverse impact on the Student’s educational performance.  The Student’s first marking period grades supported this determination.  Although the Student was on a shortened day at the time of the referral, at the recommendation of his care team following an in-patient hospitalization, the PPT noted that he was responding to the Section 504 accommodations and the plan was to increase the length of his school day prior to the incident that occurred in the community on October 24, 2025 (Fact #16).  While the District did not consider eligibility under Other Health Impairment (OHI) – ADD/ADHD based on the concerns raised in the referral, there is no evidence of ADHD adversely affecting the student’s educational performance and thereby requiring special education and related services (Fact # 27).  Though the Student received tutoring following the incident in the community on October 24, 2026, through the remainder of the initial evaluation process, the Student resumed attending his District school in-person on January 29, 2026, and began attending a full day on February 2, 2026.  It is therefore determined that the District is not in violation of 34 CFR § 300.306(c).  No corrective action is required.

 

Issue 3: The Student was not unable to attend school due to a verified medical reason which may include mental health issues, between October 27, 2025, and December 19, 2025, which would have made him eligible for homebound instruction in accordance with RCSA § 10-76d-15.  Based on a review of communications between the Parent and the District, the Student was hesitant to attend his District school following an incident in the community in which he and a peer were injured.  The staff member that initiated the tutoring referred to it twice as tutoring in the messages between the staff member and the Parent (Fact #35).  While it is the District’s position that staff are misunderstanding and/or misusing the term “homebound instruction”, it is noted that homebound instruction is mentioned in four documents (Facts # 38-41) including the PPT Record of Meeting dated December 19, 2025, which states, “[Student] is currently receiving medical homebound tutoring instruction at central office following an incident that occurred in the community.”  Despite these statements, given the Parent’s communication with District staff, it is concluded that the District accommodated the Student and Parent’s concerns in response to the incident that occurred in the community on October 24, 2025, and offered tutoring as a temporary educational option.  Following the submission of the state complaint, the Student resumed attending in-person at his District school.  Therefore, the District is not found to be in violation of RCSA § 10-76d-15.  No corrective action is required.  However, see the recommendation below.