New Haven 26-0660

Complaint Summary

Date Findings Report Sent

July 10, 2026

Case Number

26-0660

School District

New Haven

Person filing complaint

Parent

Grade Level

Elementary

Allegation(s)

  1. The Parent alleges that the District conducted a PPT meeting on November 21, 2025 without the Parent present. (34 CFR § 300.322(b)(1)(i) and RCSA §10-76d-12(a)).
  2. The Parent alleges that she never received a finalized copy of the IEP that was developed at the PPT meeting on November 21, 2025. RCSA § 10-76d-13(a)(6).
  3. The Parent alleges that the District developed inaccurate PWNs for the meeting on November 21, 2025. (34 CFR § 300.503 and RCSA §10-76d-8).
  4. The Parent alleges that the District never provided her with copies of a multidisciplinary evaluation conducted by the District after she requested a copy of the evaluation. (RCSA § 10-76d-18).
  5. The Parent alleges that the goals and objectives in the Student’s November 21, 2025, IEP are inappropriate, because they were not based on informal or formal data, such as evaluations. (34 CFR § 300.324(a)(1)).

Conclusion(s)

  1. 34 CFR § 300.322(b)(1)(i) and RCSA §10-76d-12(a) Each public agency must provide information to the parents to the purpose, time, and location of the meeting and who will be in attendance. 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 District failed to re-schedule the PPT meeting on November 21, 2025, even when it knew that the Parent could not attend the meeting, and thus violated 34 CFR § 300.322 and RCSA § 10-76d-12. Corrective action is required, see below.
  2. Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) § 10-76d-13(a)(6) require a full copy of the individualized education program to be sent to the parents within five days after the planning and placement team meeting to develop, review or revise the individualized education program. The District failed to send the November 21, 2025 IEP to the Parent within the required timeline and therefore violated RCSA § 10-76d-13(a)(6). Corrective action is required, see below.
  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. 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 34 CFR § 300.503 and RCSA §10-76d-8 by creating PWNs based on a draft IEP, and by waiving the 10-day notice without the Parent’s consent. Corrective action is required, see below.
  4. Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) § 10-76d-18 requires school districts to comply with a request from a parent to inspect and review a child’s education records without unnecessary delay, but not later than ten days of such request; such request must be made in writing.  The parent’s right to inspect and review the child’s records shall include the right to one free copy of those records; the request must be made in writing and the district must comply with such request within ten days. There is no evidence that the Parent requested a copy of the evaluation in writing, and therefore the District did not violate RCSA § 10-76d-18.
  5. 34 CFR § 300.324(a)(1) In developing each child’s IEP, the PPT must consider (i) the strengths of the child; (ii) the concerns of the parents for enhancing the education of their child; (iii) the results of the initial or most recent evaluation of the child; and (iv) the academic, developmental, and functional needs of the child. In this case there is no evidence that the PPT considered the results of the most recent reevaluation when developing the goals and objectives in the IEP. (See findings of facts 14 and 15). Additionally, since the Parent was not present at the PPT meeting, the team could not consider the concerns of the Parent when developing the goals and objectives in the IEP. Accordingly, the District is found in violation of 34 CFR § 300.324(a)(1). Corrective action is required, see below.

Corrective Action(s)

  1. The District shall provide training to the PPT members who attended the PPT meeting on November 21, 2025 about the requirements of 34 CFR § 300.324(a)(1) (goals and objectives); 34 CFR § 300.503 and RCSA §10-76d-8 (PWN); and 34 CFR § 300.322 and RCSA § 10-76d-12 (parental participation).
  2. For the next five IEPs developed by the District, the District must provide this office with the SASIDS of the Students, so this office can ensure that the District complied with the required five-day timeline.