Hartford 26-0293

Complaint Summary

Date Findings Report Sent

February 4, 2026

Case number

26-0293

School District

Hartford Public Schools

Person filing the complaint

Advocate

Grade Level

Middle

Allegation(s)

The Complainant alleged that the District was not providing the Student with an appropriate IEP in the areas of Reading, Writing. Math, and Secondary Transition. (34 CFR § 300.101)

The Complainant alleged that the District failed to provide the Parents with progress reports consistent with general education grade-level report cards as required by his IEP. (34 CFR § 300.320(a)(3))

The Complainant alleged that the District had failed to convene PPTs in a timely manner. (34 CFR § 300.324)

The Complainant alleged that the District did not notify the Parents of PPT meetings in a timely manner. (34 CFR § 300.322)

The Complainant alleged that the District did not have all of the invited PPT members at the Student’s PPT meeting and did not have the required written excusals. (34 CFR § 300.322)

The Complainant alleges that since the onset of the District’s 2025-2026 school year the Student has not been provided with any homebound services as agreed to by the District. (RCSA § 10-76d-15(a)(1), RCSA § 10-76d-15(c)(1), RCSA § 10-76d-15(e), RCSA § 10-76d-15(f))

Conclusion(s)

With regard to Issue 1, an IEP must be developed soundly based on evaluative data gathered to develop a baseline for the present levels from various sources, including standardized measures, more than simply observational, classroom-based, or anecdotal data. In the case of this student, more formal types of baseline data are significantly lacking and, in essence, were not present for the development of the Student’s reading, writing, math or secondary transition goals. Without more extensive baseline data, such measurable goals cannot be developed with any degree of reliability. It was concluded that the District was not in compliance with 34 CFR § 300.101. Corrective actions were issued.

With regard to Issue 2, while it could not be verified if the Parent’s received the hard copy IEP progress reports that the District states they provided, electronic copies of those reports do exist, both in English and Arabic, in the Student’s CT-SEDS education records which were developed in alignment with the timeline requirements of the Student’s IEP. Although the Parents do not access CT-SEDS, since it has been verified that the documents were in existence as scheduled, it is not unreasonable that such documents were provided to the Parent by the District via hard copy as pre-agreed upon for November 2024 and January 2025 and in person in March 2025. What remained ambiguous was whether the transport method of documents (Student backpack) was an adequate and efficient method of delivering these documents to the Parents. In this case, the investigator found it reasonable that the District provided the IEP progress reports to the Parents in alignment with requirements of the Student’s IEP and, if the Parent’s did not receive them, there may have been a flaw in the system of delivery; not that the District did not provide them. It was concluded that the District was not out of compliance with 34 CFR § 300.320(a)(3). No corrective actions were issued.

With regard to Issue 3, the Student’s CT-SEDS education records verify that the Student’s annual review PPT meeting was convened on May 14, 2024, and the next annual review PPT meeting was convened on May 30, 2025. This timeline does not meet the 365-day periodic review criteria. It was concluded that the District was out of compliance with 34 CFR § 300.324. Corrective actions were issued.

With regard to Issue 4, while it could not be verified if the Parents received the hard copy of each PPT meeting notice that the District states they provided, electronic copies of those notices do exist, both in English and Arabic, in the Student’s CT-SEDS education records which were developed, in all cases, within the required timelines for parent notification. Similarly to the issues encountered with the provision of the IEP progress reports, although the Parents do not access CT-SEDS, it has been verified that the documents were in existence at least 8 days prior to the scheduled meeting dates. The investigator did not find it unreasonable that such documents were provided to the Parent by the District via hard copy as pre-agreed upon. What continued to remain ambiguous was whether the transport method of documents (Student backpack) was an adequate and efficient method. In this case, the investigator found it reasonable that the District provided the PPT meeting notices to the Parents in alignment with regulatory requirements and, if the Parent’s did not receive them, it is more likely that there was a flaw in the system of delivery; not that the District did not provide them. It was concluded that the District was not out of compliance with 34 CFR § 300.322. No corrective actions were issued.

With regard to Issue 5, 34 CFR § 300.322 requires that the school district must inform parents in advance of the PPT meeting, including the purpose, time, and location of the meeting and who will be in attendance. 34 CFR § 300.321(e) requires that a member of the PPT may be excused if the parent of the student and the school district agree, in writing, that the attendance of the member is not necessary. In the case of the Student’s PPT meeting, two members of the PPT that the Parents were notified would be in attendance, did not attend, but only one had an agreement, in writing, that the attendance of that member was not necessary. It was concluded that the District was out of compliance with 34 CFR § 300.321. Corrective actions were issued.

With regard to Issue 6, the District was notified by the Student’s physician that the Student required homebound services. Homebound services were approved by the District’s medical advisor. After a PPT meeting was cancelled by the District, a school-based delay of 2 months in rescheduling that PPT, and a family-based error in who attended the Student’s next PPT meeting, it was finally determined that the Student would receive 10 hours per week of special education homebound services. This is stated by the District and not disputed by the Complainant, but there is no record of that PPT meeting in the Student’s CT-SEDS education records. What was verified was that the District has not provided any homebound services to the Student since the District’s medical advisor approved those services. The Student has missed approximately 11 weeks (or 110 hours) of homebound services, which the District now owes the Student. It is concluded that the District was out of compliance with RCSA § 10-76d-15. Corrective actions were issued.

Corrective Action(s)

1. The District shall convene a PPT to plan a comprehensive evaluation in the areas of reading, writing, math, and secondary transition for the Student in order to gather baseline data.

2. The District shall convene a PPT to develop a compensatory services plan to provide the Student with 110 hours of missed homebound special education services.

  • In consideration of the Student’s medical condition and any burden this might place on the Student, at the Parent’s discretion, the Parents may collaborate with the District to reduce or decline the total number of compensatory service hours owed, or choose alternate compensatory services to be delivered to the Student (e.g., other virtual or in-person specialized Reading, Writing, Math or Secondary Transition programs and/or services).

3. The District shall provide training/notification to staff:

  • Related to the convening of PPT annual review meetings in a timely manner as required by 34 CFR § 300.324.
  • Related to the excusal of members of a PPT for whom parents have been notified would be in attendance:
  • Related to the required PPT membership: (a) the District must ensure that the PPT for each child with a disability includes (1) the parents of the child, (2) not less than one regular education teacher of the child if the child is or may be participating in the regular education environment, (3) not less than one special education teacher of the child, (4) a representative of the District who meets criteria under 34 CFR 300.321(4)(i-iii), (5) an individual who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results who may also satisfy other roles of the PPT, (6) at the discretion of the Parent or District, other individuals who have knowledge or special expertise regarding the child, and (7) whenever appropriate, the child.
    • The District shall determine the format of such trainings/notifications.
    • The District shall determine the appropriate staff to participate in such trainings/notifications.

4. The District shall convene a PPT to review the results of the comprehensive evaluation ordered in corrective action 1, and review/revise the Student’s IEP based on that evaluation data. If the Student proves to be medically unable to participate in the evaluation to completion by June 1st, the District shall document this and the PPT shall convene and consider whatever data may have been gathered toward the review and revision of the IEP.