Complaint Summary
Date Findings Report Sent
May 22, 2026
Case number
26-0521
School District
Manchester Public Schools
Person filing the complaint
Parent
Grade Level
Elementary school
Allegation(s)
Issue 1: The Parents alleged that despite the Student’s escalating behavioral needs which included, but were not limited to, self-injury, aggression, elopement, disrobing, and refusal behaviors, the District failed to implement consistent and appropriate behavioral interventions from March 23, 2025, through March 24, 2026, resulting in the Student’s placement in District not meeting the Student’s needs. (34 CFR § 300.324(a)(2)(i))
Issue 2: The Parents alleged that the Student was secluded on September 30, 2025, and the District did not provide the required documentation of the seclusion. (CGS § 10-236b(d)(1) and CGS § 10-236b(h))
Issue 3: The Parents alleged that the District excluded the Student from education by contacting the Parents on a regular basis to come to the school and sent the Student home from school early in response to behavioral challenges. (34 CFR § 300.530 and 34 CFR § 300.101 and RCSA § 10-76d-1)
Issue 4: The Parents alleged that the District did not fulfill record requests submitted in writing beginning on November 7, 2025. The Parents further allege that the District has withheld records from the Parents and not provided them with the Student’s full education record. (RCSA § 10-76d-18)
Issue 5: Issue 5 was not investigated as it was outside of the scope of the state complaint process.
Issue 6: Issue 6 was not investigated as it was not a potential violation of state or federal special education law.
Issue 7: Issue 7 was not investigated as it was outside of the scope of the state complaint process.
Issue 8: The Parents alleged that the District refused their request for an independent education evaluation (IEE) at public expense, proposed conducting their own evaluation, and did not file for a due process hearing. (34 CFR § 300.502(b)(2))
Issue 9: Issue 9 was not investigated as there was no potential violation of state or federal special education law.
Issue 10: Issue 10 was not investigated due to the absence of facts supporting the claims.
Issue 11: Issue 11 was not investigated as there was no potential violation of state or federal special education law.
Conclusion(s)
Issue 1:
The Student exhibited dysregulated behaviors that impeded her learning on a consistent basis throughout the investigation timeline. Between April 9, 2025, and the end of the 2024-2025 school year, the Student’s escalating behaviors resulted in thirteen restraints. The Student’s functional behavioral assessment (FBA) and behavioral intervention plan (BIP) were from March 2024 and did not accurately or comprehensively identify the Student’s current behaviors as targeted behaviors within the plan. The District did not update the BIP despite the escalating behaviors noted between April 2025 and June 2025. The District convened a PPT meeting on June 13, 2025, which was rescheduled from June 2, 2025. At the PPT meeting, the PPT agreed to conduct her three-year reevaluation three months earlier than when it was due resulting in the reevaluation being conducted and reviewed by December 2025. However, the only revision to the Student’s IEP on June 13, 2025, was to add an accommodation providing the Student with access to art materials/drawing tools. From the start of the 2025-2026 school year, the Student’s behaviors continued to impede her learning and resulted in office referrals, parent contact, two restraints, and one seclusion. There were no revisions to the Student’s plan at the start of the 2025-2026 school year to support or address the Student’s behaviors. Given the severity of her behaviors and the District’s lack of implementation of new or revised interventions or strategies to address the Student’s behavior, the District is found to be in violation of 34 CFR § 300.324(a)(2)(i). Corrective action is required.
Connecticut General Statute § 10-236b(g), outlines that in the event that physical restraint or seclusion is used on a student four or more times within 20 school days, such student's PPT shall convene for the purpose of: (A) conducting or revising a behavioral assessment of the student, and (B) creating or revising any applicable behavioral intervention plan, including, but not limited to, such student's individualized education plan. Through the course of this investigation, it was noted that the District did not convene a PPT meeting to review the Student’s restraints after four restraints were administered within twenty school days in accordance with CGS § 10-236b(g). The District indicated that a PPT meeting was scheduled for June 2, 2025, which had to be rescheduled to June 13, 2025, but by June 2, 2025, the Student had already been restrained thirteen times and had met the requirement of a PPT following four restraints in twenty school days on three separate occasions. While an updated FBA and BIP were recommended at the PPT meeting on June 13, 2025, the only revision made to the Student’s current IEP was to add the accommodation of access to art materials/drawing tools. Therefore, the District is found to be in violation of Connecticut General Statute § 10-236b(g). Corrective action is required.
Issue 2:
The District staff member’s description of what occurred on September 30, 2025, would not be considered a seclusion and therefore the District was not obligated to provide the Parents with notification of a seclusion. The classroom teacher followed the Student back into the classroom and closed the door, the Student was not stopped from leaving the room again, and the room was empty when the Student’s father arrived from the main office because the classroom had to be evacuated due to the Student’s escalating behavior. It is determined that the District was not in violation of CGS § 10-236b(d)(1) or CGS § 10-236b(h) as it relates to the incident that occurred on September 30, 2025. No corrective action is required.
Issue 3:
There is no evidence to support that the Student was removed for ten school days from the start of the 2025-2026 school year through October 21, 2025, when she stopped attending school. Therefore, the District is not in violation of 34 CFR § 300.530 requiring the District to conduct a manifestation determination review. No corrective action is required.
While it is acknowledged that the Parent received frequent phone calls from the school (twenty-one calls in thirty-one days of school), the outcome of those phone calls cannot be verified by this investigator. The District documented limited early dismissals for this Student and did not identify the reason for the early dismissal on the attendance report. The Behavior Detail Report indicated that the Student’s father would often arrive at the school after being called and then choose to bring the Student home. The District acknowledged three dates in which the Student was sent home following incidents of escalated behaviors during the 2025-2026 school year, while also stating that the Student’s father requested the phone calls and would often choose to bring the Student home. When making a determination regarding a potential denial of FAPE, a student’s access to their education and progress in the general education curriculum needs to be examined. The Student’s progress on her IEP goals and objectives in June 2025 and August 2025 showed limited/minimal progress to satisfactory progress. The Student’s final report card for the 2024-2025 school year indicated that the Student did not meet standards (1) on all Reading standards, Writing standards, Social/Emotional Learning standards, and five of the seven Mathematics standards. Despite regularly occurring behavioral incidents, restraints and seclusion, parent contact, and limited progress, the only PPT meeting convened was in June 2025. At that PPT meeting, there were no changes to the Student’s special education services or goals and objectives other than the addition of one new accommodation. The Student’s BIP was outdated and did not include the behaviors that the Student was exhibiting. Given the Student’s needs and the District lack of revisions to her IEP, it is determined that the District is in violation of 34 CFR § 300.101 and RCSA § 10-76d-1 for failing to provide a free appropriate public education. Corrective action is required.
The District informed this investigator that the Student was sent home on three occasions during the 2025-2026 school. These incidents were not documented as a suspension, however, based on the time of phone calls from the school to the Student’s father, they should have been documented as an out of school suspension. The District stated that on October 20, 2025, and October 21, 2025, the Student was sent home by the school, however, the Student’s Behavior Detail Report indicates that the Student’s father “decided to take her home”. While this report is not a special education document, this discrepancy should be corrected in the Behavior Detail.
Issue 4:
The Parents requested educational records for the 2025-2026 school year on November 7, 2025. The District provided the Parents with the Student’s educational records on November 20, 2025. Upon receipt, the Parents contested that the records were inaccurate and incomplete. The Parents made a second, updated request for records on November 14, 2025, which was clarified and clearly made on November 21, 2025, that included the previous school year. The District fulfilled this request on December 8, 2026.
Essential parts of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and related regulations are incorporated in the IDEA regulations and state regulations. Under these regulations, parents have the right to inspect and review any education records relating to their child which are collected, maintained or used by the board of education. State regulation provides that parents have a right to one free copy of those records. Whether a particular item of information about a student is protected by FERPA depends on if it meets the statute's definition of an "education record". FERPA regulations define education records as those records that are directly related to a student and maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a party acting for the agency or institution. 34 CFR § 99.3(a). Neither FERPA nor IDEA mandate what material must be maintained by a local education agency. The applicable state authority on what must be retained (State Library Schedule of Record Retention) sets forth a list of records that must be retained by local education agencies. Included in the list of special education and related service records that must be retained are assessment/evaluation reports, individualized education programs and planning and placement team records, to name a few. The schedule does not include the types of documents the Parents alleged to have not received following their request for educational records (parent contacts/notifications, front desk sign-in/sign-out logs, and behavioral or attendance-related concerns).
Based on the review of the Parents’ request for records and the records provided by the District, the District is not in violation of RCSA § 10-76d-18. No corrective action is required.
The Parents were previously informed of their rights under 34 CFR § 300.618 to request an amendment of records.
Issue 5: Issue 5 was not investigated as it was outside of the scope of the state complaint process.
Issue 6: Issue 6 was not investigated as it was not a potential violation of state or federal special education law.
Issue 7: Issue 7 was not investigated as it was outside of the scope of the state complaint process.
Issue 8:
The Parents requested an IEE at public expense at the PPT meeting held on June 13, 2025. During this investigation, the Student’s mother informed this investigator that the request was based on their disagreement with the 2023 evaluation conducted by the District. The District conversely informed this investigator that the Parents never expressed disagreement with the previous evaluations and were requesting an independent evaluator to assess new areas of concern not previously assessed by the District. It is the position of the District that the Parents’ request was for a targeted assessment by an outside evaluator based on new concerns and that although the Parent’s request for an IEE at public expense was denied, the Parents agreed with moving up the Student’s three-year reevaluation and agreed with the assessments planned for that evaluation.
It is concerning that the PWN stated that the District was “exercising its right under IDEA to conduct its own evaluation prior to funding an IEE” as OSEP has provided guidance that when a parent disagrees with an evaluation obtained by the school district because the student was not assessed in a particular area, the parent has the right to request an IEE to assess the child in that area to determine whether the student has a disability and the nature and extent of the special education and related services that the student needs. When a parent requests an IEE because the student was not assessed in a particular area, a school district may not conduct its own evaluation in the given area prior to granting the parent’s request for an IEE (Letter to Carroll 68 IDELR 279 (OSEP 2016). However, it is unclear whether the Parent did in fact express that she disagreed with the previous evaluations or if the Parent questioned the comprehensiveness of the previously conducted evaluations which was why the request for an IEE at public expense was made. The Parent’s email communication with a representative from an advocacy group prior to the PPT meeting held in June suggested that they had discussed the planning of the upcoming three-year reevaluation and areas to request that the District assess.
Although the District may have perceived the request for an IEE at public expense as a targeted assessment, the PWN issued by the District does not indicate or confirm that perception. Without any other documentation of the discussion on the Parents’ request, the PWN is the documented evidence. The reason for refusing the Parent’s request indicated “The district is exercising its right under IDEA to conduct its own evaluation prior to funding an IEE” which contradicts the IDEA and OSEP’s guidance. If the Parent’s request was unclear, the District should have sought further clarification prior to denying the request for an IEE at public expense. In accordance with 34 CFR § 300.502(b)(2), a district has two options following a parent’s request for an IEE at public expense. The District is found to be in violation of 34 CFR § 300.502(b)(2) for not granting the Parent’s request or filing a due process complaint to request a hearing to show that its evaluation is appropriate. Given the amount of time that has passed since the Parent’s request at the PPT meeting held on June 13, 2025, the Student’s withdrawal from the District, and the PPT meeting held in December 2025 in which the District determined the Student’s continued eligibility for special education and related services, limited corrective action is ordered.
Issue 9: Issue 9 was not investigated as there was no potential violation of state or federal special education law.
Issue 10: Issue 10 was not investigated due to the absence of facts supporting the claims.
Issue 11: Issue 11 was not investigated as there was no potential violation of state or federal special education law.
Corrective Action(s)
- The District must engage its Board counsel to provide comprehensive training to the special education staff on the Student’s school teams from the 2024-2025 and 2025-2026 school years including administrators on the requirements of 34 CFR § 300.324(a)(2)(i), Connecticut General Statute § 10-236b(g), and 34 CFR § 300.502(b)(2).The contents of the training and staff signatures and dates must be provided to this investigator no later than August 31, 2026.
- The Student is no longer enrolled in the District, however, the District is to provide compensatory education services to the Student in the form of specialized academic instruction and counseling.The Student is to be offered 31 hours of academic instruction and 14 hours of counseling.The services may be provided by District staff or through a contract agency.The District must identify the providers and provide confirmation to this investigator no later than June 30, 2026.The District must provide this office with monthly updates on the delivery of services until the compensatory education hours are delivered in full beginning on August 1, 2026.All services must be delivered on or before March 31, 2027.The Parents have the right to decline in part or whole the compensatory education services in writing awarded to the Student.
- The District must review with the school’s administrators Section 10-233-a through Section 10-233-c of the Connecticut General Statutes no later than June 30, 2026. Staff signatures confirming the review of the Connecticut General Statutes must be sent to this investigator no later than June 30, 2026.
- The District is required to document the out-of-school suspensions on October 16, 2025, October 20, 2025, and October 21, 2025, and provide the Parents with proper documentation. Documentation must be sent to this investigator no later than June 30, 2026.
Recommendations:
- It is strongly recommended that the Parents re-enroll the Student in the District and a PPT meeting is convened to plan for the Student’s placement and services.Updated evaluations should inform the Student’s present levels of performance to best plan for the Student’s individualized needs and services.