Manchester 26-0471

Complaint Summary

Date Findings Report Sent

April 30, 2026

Case number

26-0471

School District

Manchester Public Schools

Person filing the complaint

Parent

Grade Level

High school

Allegation(s)

  1. The Parent alleges that none of the PPT members who were present at the April 7, 2025 PPT meeting had authority to authorize the placement at Willie Ross School for the Deaf or ASL Interpreter services and that is part of the reason why the Parent’s request for placement and service was denied.(34 CFR § 300.321 (a)(4))
  2. The Parent alleges that since April 7, 2025, the District has failed to implement the ASL interpreter services in accordance with the Student’s IEP.(34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17(d), RCSA § 10-76d-1(a)(3))
  3. The Parent alleges that at a PPT meeting on December 4, 2025, she requested that the Student attend Willie Ross School for the Deaf, and that she never received PWN for this request.The Parent also alleges that at a PPT meeting on April 7, 2025, she requested a registered ASL interpreter and that she never received PWN for this request.(34 CFR § 300.503 and RCSA §10-76d-8)
  4. The Parent alleged that she was not able to meaningfully participate in PPT meetings because staff did not make her aware of their issues with failing to implement the IEP since April 7, 2025.(34 CFR § 300.322 and RCSA § 10-76d-12)

Conclusion(s)

  1. 34 CFR § 300.321 (a)(4) states that the public agency must ensure that the IEP Team includes an individual who is qualified to provide, or supervise the provision of, specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of children with disabilities, is knowledgeable about the general education curriculum, and is knowledgeable about the availability of resources of the public agency.  While it is true that the District had an administrator at the PPT meeting on April 7, 2025, this Administrator was not about to grant or deny the Parent’s request for ASL services, which relate to the provision of FAPE, at the meeting.  Therefore, the District is found in violation of 34 CFR § 300.321 (a)(4).
  2. 34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17(d), RCSA § 10-76d-1(a)(3) require each board of education to provide in a timely way special education and related services in accordance with the student’s IEP.  The contracted interpreter failed to provide ASL services on 30 days or 80 hours, and the District’s interpreter failed to provide ASL service on 18 days or for 30.5 hours.  However, there were only six days, where the Student did not have any ASL services at all.  Therefore, the District violated 34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17(d), RCSA § 10-76d-1(a)(3) when it failed to provide these services.  The District’s ASL interpreter is not registered with the State of Connecticut, however, there is no requirement to be registered to provide ASL services in a school setting.  Furthermore, the evaluation in December demonstrated that the Student was able to access his education when the District’s interpreter was providing services.  Therefore, the District did not violate 34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17(d), RCSA § 10-76d-1(a)(3) by using their own interpreter to provide services.
  3. 34 CFR § 300.503 and RCSA §10-76d-8 obligates a local board of education to provide parents of a child with a disability with written notice before the board refused to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child or the provision of a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) to the child.  This notice must include a description of the action proposed or refused by the PPT, and explanation of why such PPT proposes or refuses to take the action, a description of each evaluation procedure, assessment, record, or report such board used a as a basis for the proposed or refused action, a statement that  the parent of a child with a disability have protections under the procedural safeguards of IDEA and, if the written notice required is for the initial referral for evaluation, additional requirement.  Additionally, the notice must include sources for parents to contact to obtain assistance in understanding the procedural safeguards of IDEA, a description of other options the PPT considered and the reasons why those options were rejected, and a description of other factors that are relevant to the proposal or refusal.

    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. The District violated the PWN requirements when it did not provide the Parent with PWN related to her request for ASL services, since this request relates to the provision of FAPE.  The District did not violate the PWN requirements when they did not issue PWN for the Parent’s request for the Willie Ross School.  As outlined above, the District is only required to provide PWN in certain circumstances.  In this case the Parent was not requesting a change of placement, but instead a specific school, and therefore PWN was not required and no violation is found.
  4. 34 CFR § 300.322 and RCSA § 10-76d-12 require that each public agency must take steps to ensure that one or both of the parents of a child with a disability are present at PPT meetings or are afforded the opportunity to participate in each meeting to develop, review, or revise the IEP, and must take whatever action is necessary to ensure that the parent understands the proceedings of the PPT meeting. The Parent alleged that she was not able to meaningfully participate in PPT meetings because staff did not make her aware of their issues with failing to implement the IEP since April 7, 2025.  Based on all of the documents reviewed as part of this investigation, it is concluded that the Parent was able to meaningfully participate in all of the PPT meetings, which took place during the relevant time period of this investigation, despite not being aware of the interpreters’ absences.  Thus, no violation is found.

Corrective Action(s)

  1. The District must engage the special education staff at the Student’s PPT meetings in a review of the requirements of Prior Written Notice and the role of the Administrator at PPT meetings.
  2. The District must provide the Student with 60 hours of compensatory education.The PPT shall convene at a time mutually agreeable with the Parent to determine the type and schedule of the services to be provided.