Old Saybrook 26-0204

Complaint Summary

Date Findings Report Sent:

December 1, 2025

Case Number:

26-0204

Grade Level:

Elementary

Person filing complaint:

Parent

School District:

Old Saybrook

Allegation(s):

  • 34 CFR § 300.324 provides that the planning and placement team (PPT) must, in the case of a student whose behavior impedes the student’s learning or that of others, consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and other strategies, to address that behavior.
    • The Parent alleges that the Student’s behavior interfered with the Student’s ability to attend speech and language services, social skills group, and reading.
  • Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) § 10-76d-12 provides that each planning and placement team (PPT) is responsible for initiating, conducting, and maintaining a record of PPT meetings for developing, reviewing, or revising a child’s individualized education program (IEP).
    • The Parent alleges that at the PPT meeting on October 7, 2025, the District conceded that it had revised the Student’s IEP outside of a PPT meeting. Specifically, the District acknowledged that it had removed the Student’s writing and behavior service hours and goals from the IEP outside of a PPT meeting for the 2023-24 school year.
  • 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 a student’s individualized education program (IEP).
    • The Parent alleges that the District failed to hold the September of 2025 meeting in accordance with the Student’s IEP.
  • 34 CFR § 300.502 and RCSA § 10-76d-9(c) provide that a parent may have a right to a publicly funded IEE if the parent disagrees with a district evaluation. When a parent requests an IEE, the district must, without unnecessary delay, file for a due process hearing to defend its evaluation or ensure that the evaluation is provided at no cost to the parent. Federal regulations also provide that when the IEE is provided at public expense, the criteria under which the evaluation is obtained, including the location of the evaluation and the qualifications of the examiner, must be the same as the criteria that the public agency uses when it initiates an evaluation, to the extent those criteria are consistent with the parent’s right to an IEE. Except for these criteria, a public agency may not impose conditions or timelines related to obtaining an IEE at public expense.
    • The Parent alleges that the Parent requested an IEE at public expense at the PPT meeting on October 7, 2025, and that the District has neither granted the IEE nor filed for a due process request as of this date.

Conclusion(s):

  • 34 CFR § 300.324 provides that the planning and placement team (PPT) must, in the case of a student whose behavior impedes the student’s learning or that of others, consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and other strategies, to address that behavior.
    • The Parent alleges that the Student’s behavior interfered with the Student’s ability to attend speech and language services, social skills group, and reading.
  • Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) § 10-76d-12 provides that each planning and placement team (PPT) is responsible for initiating, conducting, and maintaining a record of PPT meetings for developing, reviewing, or revising a child’s individualized education program (IEP).
    • The Parent alleges that at the PPT meeting on October 7, 2025, the District conceded that it had revised the Student’s IEP outside of a PPT meeting. Specifically, the District acknowledged that it had removed the Student’s writing and behavior service hours and goals from the IEP outside of a PPT meeting for the 2023-24 school year.
  • 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 a student’s individualized education program (IEP).
    • The Parent alleges that the District failed to hold the September of 2025 meeting in accordance with the Student’s IEP.
  • 34 CFR § 300.502 and RCSA § 10-76d-9(c) provide that a parent may have a right to a publicly funded IEE if the parent disagrees with a district evaluation. When a parent requests an IEE, the district must, without unnecessary delay, file for a due process hearing to defend its evaluation or ensure that the evaluation is provided at no cost to the parent. Federal regulations also provide that when the IEE is provided at public expense, the criteria under which the evaluation is obtained, including the location of the evaluation and the qualifications of the examiner, must be the same as the criteria that the public agency uses when it initiates an evaluation, to the extent those criteria are consistent with the parent’s right to an IEE. Except for these criteria, a public agency may not impose conditions or timelines related to obtaining an IEE at public expense.
    • The Parent alleges that the Parent requested an IEE at public expense at the PPT meeting on October 7, 2025, and that the District has neither granted the IEE nor filed for a due process request as of this date.

Corrective Action(s):

  • Not Applicable.