Complaint Summary
Date Findings Report Sent
June 8, 2026
Case Number
26-0572
School District
Montville (single student)
Person filing complaint
Parent
Grade Level
Pre-K/elem (3 yr old)
Allegation(s)
Issue 1
The Parent indicates that Prior Written Notice (PWN) for the Student’s exit from special education services was provided to the Parent on April 9, 2026, with an effective date of April 20, 2026. Given that the District was in recess from April 13-17, 2026, the Parent alleges that this does not meet the regulatory requirements for the number of days of notice to the Parent before making that change in placement. (RCSA § 10-76d-8)
Issue 2 Part 1
The Parent alleges that the District conducted the Student’s three-year re-evaluation (triennial) “outside of the triennial window” in violation of regulatory requirements. (34 CFR § 300.303)
Issue 2 Part 2
The Parent also alleges that at the time of granting consent for the re-evaluation, he did not understand that he was granting consent for evaluations that had the potential to result in the Student’s exit from special education. (34 CFR § 300.300(c)(1)(i))
Issue 3 Part 1
The Parent alleges that there is no consent to conduct the re-evaluation in the Student’s education records. However, a signed re-evaluation consent form was uploaded to the Student’s CT-SEDS education records on December 17, 2025. The Parent has provided evidence (i.e., screen shot of the Parent Portal) that this document was not, at that time, viewable in the Student’s CT-SEDS Parent Portal. (34 CFR § 300.300(c)(1)(i))
Issue 3 Part 2
The Parent further alleges that he did not receive a copy of the results of the Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation 3 (GFTA 3) administered as a part of the re-evaluation. Other than for initial evaluation/referral, there is no requirement to provide a parent with a copy of an evaluation report prior to a PPT unless the Parent has made a written request for that document as an education record. In the case of such a request, the following regulation applies: (RCSA) § 10-76d-18(a)(1-2).
Issue 4
The Parent alleges that he requested an IEE based on disagreement with the evaluations obtained by the District and alleges that the District has not responded to such request without unnecessary delay. (34 CFR § 300.502)
Issue 5
The Parent alleges that, “the District sent withdrawal papers to [the Parents] to withdraw [the Student] from Montville Schools effective [April 10, 2026].” (RCSA § 10-76d-1(a)(4))
Conclusion(s)
Issue 1
According to the PWN, dated April 8, 2026, the Parent waived the right to the 10-day period before implementation of the change in the Student’s placement and agreed to an implementation date of April 20, 2026. It was concluded that the District was not in violation of RCSA § 10-76d-8. No corrective action was required.
Issue 2 Part 1
According to regulatory requirements, a reevaluation may not occur more than once a year. However, the regulation stipulates that it can occur more than once a year if the Parent and District agree. Based on the consent granted by the Parent on December 17, 2026, the District was not in violation of the one-year requirement of the regulation. It was concluded that the District was not in violation of 34 CFR § 300.303. No corrective action was required.
Issue 2 Part 2
The Parent alleged that he did not understand that the consent he was signing had the potential to result in the Student being found ineligible for special education and related services. The consent for reevaluation form signed by the Parent as well as the Student’s December 17, 2026, IEP clearly state that such reevaluation was to be conducted to determine eligibility for special education and related services. It was concluded that the District was not in violation of 34 CFR § 300.300(c)(1)(i). No corrective action was required.
Issue 3 Part 1
An anomaly exists which cannot be explained by the District, the Parent or this investigator in that a signed Consent to Conduct a Reevaluation Assessment was uploaded to the Student’s CT-SEDS education records on December 17, 2025, and is fully accessible to this investigator. Conversely, the Parent has provided evidence (i.e., screen shot of documents in the Parent Portal), that does not list that the same document at that time. Further, there is no documentation in the CT-SEDS Parent Actions log to indicate that the Parent has accessed that consent document. Absent of this anomaly, and in consideration of the Parent’s allegation that he did not provide consent for the reevaluation, the Parent has demonstrated that he signed such consent through his allegation that he “did not understand what he was signing at the time” (see Issue 2 Part 2). While this investigation has not revealed the cause of the anomaly in records, the Parent’s statement does indicate that the Consent to Conduct a Reevaluation Assessment was signed, granting consent for the reevaluation to move forward. It was concluded that the District was not in violation of 34 CFR § 300.300(c)(1)(i). No corrective action was required. The District is advised, however, to verify that such consent form is fully accessible in the Parent Portal at this time.
Issue 3 Part 2
The results of the Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation 3 (GFTA 3) administered as a part of the Student’s reevaluation have been provided to the Parent as requested and are contained in a joint report which also includes the results of the Battelle 3. It was concluded that the District was not in violation of RCSA § 10-76d-18(a)(1-2). No corrective action was required.
Issue 4
Beginning on April 10, 2026, the District received the Parent’s request for an IEE and, as demonstrated in engaged in both an attempt to mediate the Parent’s concerns, including the IEE, and when mediation failed to be an option, engaged in efforts to gather data from the Parent in order to make an informed decision as to whether to grant the IEE or file a request for a due process hearing in order to defend their evaluations. While this process of communication between the District and the Parent took approximately one month, it is clear from the regular email correspondences that both parties were actively attempting to gain important data in order to make decisions relative to next steps. Ultimately, the District granted the IEE after receiving data needed to make the decision from the Parent. While the regulation requires the District to respond to a request for an IEE “without unnecessary delay”, it is evident from the email correspondences that delaying a response to the IEE request was not the District’s intent. Rather, the response was subject to the time it took, first, to determine if the issues were to be mediated, and second, in the absence of the Parent’s agreement to mediate, in actively gathering the needed data to make a decision related to the granting of the IEE. It is this investigator’s determination that the delay in responding to the IEE was not unnecessary. It was concluded that the District was not in violation of 34 CFR § 300.502. No corrective action was required.
Issue 5
In Montville, preschool, the environment appropriate for a child of the Student’s age, is not mandatory. MIP, a District-run preschool, is an integrated environment in which both students with disabilities and typical peers attend. Typical peers may become enrolled in MIP through a lottery, should parents wish their child to have an opportunity to attend. Students with disabilities may be placed in MIP through the PPT process, rather than the lottery, should the PPT determine that MIP is the appropriate placement. In this case, the Student’s April 8, 2026, PPT determined that the Student was no longer eligible for special education and related services, therefore was no longer eligible for a PPT placement in MIP. However, rather than disrupt the Student’s enrollment in MIP at that time in the school year the District offered to allow the Student to remain at MIP as a typical peer through the end of the school year. It must be noted that, at that point, there was no District requirement that the Student attend any preschool. It is understood that the Student’s Parents were not in agreement with the PPT decision to exit the Student from special education services and that he attend MIP as a typical peer. With that, the Parents made the decision to discontinue the Student’s enrollment in MIP as a typical peer after April 10, 2026. The Student’s termination in MIP as a special education student was directly associated with the PPT decision that the Student was no longer eligible for special education services. Given that there was no District mandate that the Student continue to attend preschool, together with the Parent’s decision not to continue to keep the Student enrolled in MIP after April 10, 2026, it was an appropriate determination by the District that the Student, then, must be withdrawn. Thus, the appropriate documents for withdrawal were provided to the Parents. The District no longer had an obligation to provide the Student with any special education services. It was concluded that the District was not in violation of RCSA § 10-76d-1(a)(4). No corrective action was required.
Corrective Action(s)
No corrective action was required.