New Haven 26-0569

Complaint Summary

Date Findings Report Sent

June 9, 2026

Case Number

26-0569

School District

New Haven Public Schools (single student)

Person filing complaint

Parent

Grade Level

Elementary School

Allegation(s)

Issue 1: The Parent alleged that following the PPT meeting held on March 11, 2026, the Student was not consistently provided with one-to-one paraeducator support citing an email from the District on April 7, 2026, that stated, “I acknowledge that the para support has been very inconsistent” and the Student’s daily behavior charts. The Parent further alleged that the District failed to implement the Student’s behavioral intervention plan (BIP) with fidelity during a behavioral incident on April 7, 2026. The Parent alleged that the District failed to ensure that the paraeducator working with the Student was trained in the Student’s BIP, based on the BCBA’s presence at the school on Wednesdays and the paraeducator’s absences on Wednesday following the implementation of the BIP. (34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17(d) and RCSA § 10-76d-1(a)(1))

Issue 2: Issue 2 was not investigated as there were no facts that supported the allegation.

Issue 3: The Parent alleged that the District failed to provide progress reports in accordance with the Student’s IEP during the 2025-2026 school year. (34 CFR § 300.320(a)(3))

Issue 4: The Parent alleged that the District failed to develop an accurate and complete IEP. The Parent further alleged that the IEP dated March 11, 2026, did not reflect agreed-upon services, citing District emails from March 30, 2026, and April 2, 2026, indicating that the IEP would be updated to reflect the one-to-one paraeducator support. (34 CFR § 300.320(a)(4))

Issue 5: The Parent alleged that the District did not provide all of the evaluation reports in advance of the PPT meeting held December 16, 2025. (CGS § 10-76d(a)(10)(G))

Issue 6: The Parent alleged that the District failed to provide complete evaluations for the PPT meeting held on December 16, 2025, to review evaluations and determine eligibility. The Parent further alleged that the evaluation reports contained placeholder language and were incomplete. (34 CFR § 300.301(a))

Issue 7: The Parent alleged that the District failed to timely respond to a request for an independent education evaluation (IEE) at public expense. The Parent further alleged that the District failed to reimburse the Parent for the obtained IEE, despite agreement to reimburse the Parent. (34 CFR § 300.502(2))

Issue 8: Issue 8 was not investigated as the allegation was outside of the scope of the state complaint process.

Issue 9: The Parent alleged that they did not receive the full IEP within five school days of the PPT meetings held on December 16, 2025, January 27, 2026, and March 11, 2026. The Parent further alleged that the Parent’s request for access to the Connecticut Special Education Data System (CT-SEDS) initially went unanswered by the District. (RCSA § 10-76d-13(a)(6))

Conclusion(s)

Issue 1: A District is not required to waive the 10 school days for implementation even when a Parent makes the request. The Student’s IEP dated March 11, 2026, and the Prior Written Notice (PWN) for the PPT meeting held on March 11, 2026, both indicated an implementation date of April 2, 2026. The IEP noted the Parent’s request to implement the IEP sooner and the District noted that they would attempt to implement the IEP sooner than April 2, 2026. Based on the Student’s daily behavior chart, there is evidence that paraeducator support was provided inconsistently between the date of the PPT meeting and the date of implementation of the IEP. Following the implementation of the IEP on April 2, 2026, the Student was not provided with one-to-one paraeducator support on April 2, 2026, April 6, 2026, April 7, 2026, and April 10, 2026 (filing date of the state complaint).

Based on the incident report for April 7, 2026, staff provided prompting, contacted support staff for assistance, provided redirection, “deescalation attempts”, and the Student was eventually removed from the classroom (Fact #14). In response to this investigation, the District also stated that the Student was provided with close proximity to the teacher, offered a break, and adult support (Fact #15). The Student’s BIP indicates that minimal reminders should be given and a three-step calm-down routine should be implemented with a visual on the Student’s desk at all times. The Student should be presented with a movement choice board as well as provided with a four-tier response system which includes for tier 1 delivering one calm directive, providing a visual cue card, allowing 10 seconds for compliance, and avoiding repeated verbal redirection. Tier 2 includes calling for support, offering structured choice, providing access to a 3–5-minute reset area, and reducing audience and verbal interaction. Tier 3 includes prioritizing safety, removing peers if necessary, using minimal verbal interactions, providing calm, clear safety statements, and escorting to designated safe space as needed (Fact #16). The incident on April 7, 2026, escalated from non-compliance to unsafe behaviors which resulted in the Student’s removal from the classroom which lasted for more than two hours. A review of the information provided by the District does not support the implementation of the individualized strategies within the Student’s BIP as outlined above during the incident on April 7, 2026.

There is no evidence to support that the paraeducator(s) working with the Student following the PPT meeting on March 11, 2026, through the filing of the state complaint on April 10, 2026, were trained on the Student’s BIP. The first paraeducator training noted by the District occurred on May 7, 2026. Therefore, the District is in violation of 34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17(d) and RCSA § 10-76d-1(a)(1) for not providing the Student with one-to-one paraeducator support in accordance with her IEP, not implementing the Student’s BIP during the incident on April 7, 2026, and not training staff on the Student’s BIP as outlined in the BIP. Corrective action is required.

Issue 2: Issue 2 was not investigated due to the absence of facts supporting the claims.

Issue 3: The District was responsible for providing progress reports in January 2026 and April 2026. Although the Student’s initial IEP went into effect on January 16, 2026, the second marking period closed on January 23, 2026, and the Parents should have been provided with a progress report along with the second marking period report card even if limited data was available at that time. Upon the closure of the third marking period in April 2026, the District was required to provide the Parent with a progress report consistent with grade-level report cards. The progress report on IEP goals and objectives was generated in CT-SEDS on May 11, 2026, and was finalized on May 14, 2026. The CT-SEDS Parent Portal does not provide parents with access to draft documents and therefore the Parent was not provided with the April 2026 progress report until May 14, 2026, despite this complaint being filed on April 10, 2026, alleging a lack of progress reports on IEP goals and objectives. The District is in violation of 34 CFR § 300.320(a)(3). Corrective action is required.

Issue 4: The District acknowledged that the IEP dated March 11, 2026, did not accurately reflect the special education and related services including supplementary aids and services recommended at the PPT meeting. Despite written acknowledgement, the IEP was not updated until April 22, 2026. Therefore, the District is in violation of 34 CFR § 300.320(a)(4). Corrective action is required.

Issue 5: The Parent was not provided with the results of the assessments and evaluations used in the determination of eligibility for special education at least three school days before the referral planning and placement team meeting at which such results of the assessments and evaluations were discussed for the first time. The Parent was provided with the occupational therapy evaluation and a draft communication evaluation prior to the PPT meeting, but was not provided with the psychological evaluation, FBA/BIP or the social work report in advance of the PPT meeting. Therefore, the District is in violation of CGS § 10-76d(a)(10)(G). Corrective action is required.

Issue 6: The District did not conduct a full and individual initial evaluation before the initial provision of special education and related services to the Student. At the PPT meeting held on December 16, 2025, the District reviewed evaluation results following the Parent’s referral to determine eligibility for special education and related services which identified the major area of concern as behavior. While the communication and occupational therapy evaluations were completed prior to the PPT meeting, the psychoeducational evaluation was incomplete, did not include the recommended emotional disturbance decision tree assessment, and required two amended evaluations reports which were issued in January 2026. The FBA and BIP were incomplete and included placeholder language throughout the report. The social work report was also incomplete and required revisions prior to being issued to the Parent in January 2026. Upon review of the parent-initiated independent education evaluation (IEE) at a PPT meeting on January 27, 2026, revisions were made to the Student’s IEP to reflect information that was not available at the PPT meeting held on December 16, 2025, to determine eligibility for special education and related services. Therefore, the District is in violation of 34 CFR § 300.301(a) as they did not conduct a full initial evaluation before the provision of special education and related services. Corrective action is required.

Issue 7: Although screenshots show that an email sent by the Parent to the District was quarantined by the District’s firewall, the subject line is different than the Parent’s email sent on the same day requesting an IEE at public expense. There is no evidence that the District responded to the Parent’s request for an IEE at public expense despite three District administrators included in the emails, which were originally sent on December 19, 2025, and again on January 15, 2026. The only email from the District that mentions the Parent’s request for an IEE was sent by the school’s principal on January 21, 2026, after the Parent withdrew his request for an IEE at public expense via email on January 20, 2026. In the District’s email on January 21, 2026, the school administrator acknowledged receipt of the email sent by the Parent on January 15, 2026, and informed the Parent that the District had identified a quarantined email from the Parent from December 19, 2025.

At a PPT meeting on January 27, 2026, the District agreed to reimburse the Parent for the parent-initiated independent education evaluation. Emails between the District and Parent confirmed that the District agreed to reimburse the Parent. As of May 29, 2026, the Parent had not been reimbursed for the evaluation, although the Parent did confirm that on May 13, 2026, he submitted required paperwork to be set up as a vendor with the city for reimbursement.

The District is in violation of 34 CFR § 300.502(2) as it relates to the District’s responsibility to file a due process complaint to request a hearing to show that its evaluation is appropriate or ensure that an independent educational evaluation is provided at public expense, without unnecessary delay. Even if the Parent’s original request on December 19, 2025, was quarantined by the District’s firewall which evidence does not substantiate, the Parent’s subsequent request on January 15, 2026, went unanswered and the Parent was only acknowledged after he withdrew the request for an IEE at public expense to pursue a parent-initiated independent evaluation. Furthermore, the Parent was never contacted by a special education administrator in response to the Parent’s requests for an IEE at public expense. Corrective action is required.

Issue 8: Issue 8 was not investigated as it was outside of the scope of the state complaint process.

Issue 9: The District did not provide the Parent with a full copy of the IEP within five school days of PPT meetings held on December 16, 2025, January 27, 2026, and March 11, 2026. The Parent was first able to access CT-SEDS on January 16, 2026. User actions within CT-SEDS confirm that the District updated the Parent’s information after the Parent informed the District that he could not access CT-SEDS. The District is in violation of RCSA§ 10-76d-13(a)(6) for not providing the Parent with a full copy of the IEP within five school days of the PPT meetings. Corrective action is required.

Corrective Action(s)

  1. The District must provide training to the Student’s special education team including administrators for the 2025-2026 school year on the requirements of:
    1. 34 CFR § 300.320(a)(3) regarding the documentation of student progress on IEP goals and objectives in accordance with a student’s IEP;
    2. 34 CFR § 300.320(a)(4) regarding the requirement that the IEP include a statement of the special education and related services and supplementary aids and services;
    3. CGS § 10-76d(a)(10)(G) regarding the requirement to provide upon request the results of the assessments and evaluations used in the determination of eligibility for special education at least three school days before the referral planning and placement team meeting at which such results of the assessments and evaluations will be discussed for the first time;
    4. 34 CFR § 300.301(a) regarding the requirement to conduct a full initial evaluation before the provision of special education and related services;
    5. 34 CFR § 300.502(2) regarding the requirements of the District following a request for an independent educational evaluation at public expense; and
    6. RCSA § 10-76d-13(a)(6) regarding the requirements of providing a full copy of the IEP within five school days of the PPT meeting.
    The content of the training and staff signatures and date must be sent to this investigator on or before August 31, 2026.
  2. The District must provide this investigator with the appointment letter for the paraeducator assigned to the Student for the 2026-2027 school year. The letter must be sent to this investigator on or before August 26, 2026.
  3. The District must provide training on the Student’s BIP to all staff working with the Student for the 2026-2027 school year. A copy of the training and staff signatures and date must be sent to this investigator on or before August 31, 2026.
  4. The District must implement a tracking system for the documentation requirements for special education staff at the Student’s school (and recommended districtwide). The tracking system must include finalizing an IEP within five school days of a PPT meeting, progress report in accordance with IEPs, and the timeline for the completion of initial evaluations. A copy of the tracking system and documentation of the review of the required tracking system with all special education staff at the Student’s school including signatures and dates must be sent to this investigator on or before August 31, 2026.
  5. The District must create and provide a compensatory education plan for the Student based on the lack of a full initial evaluation prior to the provision of special education and related services and the revisions made to the Student’s IEP on January 27, 2026. The Student is to receive:
    1. 90 minutes of school-based counseling; and
    2. 300 minutes of reading instruction.
    A copy of the compensatory education plan must be provided to this investigator on or before August 1, 2026. The District must provide this office with first of the month updates on the delivery of services until the compensatory education hours are delivered in full. All services under the compensatory education plan must be delivered on or before December 23, 2026.

    If the Parent feels that such compensatory services would be overly burdensome or stressful to the student, the Parent, in collaboration with the District, through the PPT process, may determine an alternate number of compensatory service hours or identify alternative compensatory service strategies, methods or programs to compensate the Student which must be reported to the CSDE.

  6. The District must provide a first of the month update on the status of the Parent’s reimbursement for the parent-initiated independent education evaluation through reimbursement to this investigator beginning on July 1, 2026. Along with the update there must be evidence provided that District staff checked on the status of the reimbursement with the party responsible for issuing the reimbursement.