Complaint Summary

Date Findings Report Sent

December 1, 2025

Case Number

26-0204

School District

Old Saybrook

Person filing complaint

Parent

Grade Level

Elementary

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. 
• 34 CFR § 300.324(b) provides that Districts must review Student's IEPs periodically, but no less than annually. 34 CFR § 300.101 requires that a school district must provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to all children residing in their school district. In order to do so, a school district must offer an IEP that is appropriate in light of the child's circumstances. The Parent alleges that the Parent requested a PPT meeting on September 15, 2025, and one was not scheduled until October 7, 2025. 
• 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. During the 2024-25 school year, the Student missed a minimal amount of services due to his behavior. So far, during the 2025-26 year time period covered in this complaint, the Student has not missed any services due to his behavior. The District addressed the Student's behavior with an annual goal and corresponding objective in the IEP. Additionally, the District had a BCBA observe the Student and recommend behavioral interventions for the staff to implement. These interventions were successful in extinguishing the Student's behavior issues that were causing him to miss services, as evidenced by the satisfactory progress on the goals and objectives in the Student's IEP. Thus, no violation of 34 CFR § 300.324 is found. 
• 34 CFR § 300.324(b) provides that Districts must review Student's IEPs periodically, but no less than annually. 34 CFR § 300.101 requires that a school district must provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to all children residing in their school district. In order to do so, a school district must offer an IEP that is appropriate in light of the child's circumstances. When the Parent emailed the District on September 15, 2025, she did not request a PPT meeting. Instead, she requested to discuss funding for tutoring. Even so, the District held a PPT meeting approximately three weeks later on October 7, 2025, which is a reasonable time period given the facts of this specific situation. Therefore, no violation of 34 CFR § 300.324(b) or 34 CFR § 300.101 is found. 
• 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 Parents never requested an IEE at public expense, so the District did not have an obligation to file for a due process hearing or provide the evaluation at no cost to the Parents. Therefore, the District did not violate 34 CFR § 300.502 and RCSA § 10-76d-9(c).

Corrective Action(s)

Not Applicable