Complaint Summary
Date Findings Report Sent
May 20, 2026
Case number
26-0515
School District
Ridgefield Public Schools (single student)
Person filing the complaint
Parent
Grade Level
Elementary
Allegation(s)
Issue 1: The Parent alleged that the District failed to provide alternative educational services to the Student prior to choosing to place her in a significantly more restrictive environment and has failed to provide the Student with educational services during the time that the Parent has chosen to refrain from sending the Student to school. Further, the Parent alleged that the District failed to appropriately support the Student’s transition-related needs (e.g., difficulty with transitions and participation in the school environment), and to provide proactive behavioral support (e.g., needs in social-emotional functioning, executive functioning, and regulation). [34 CFR § 300.101]
Issue 2: The Parent alleged that the change in the Student’s IEP from 32.84 hours per week time with non-disabled peers to 6.8 hours per week of time with non-disabled peers from April 15, 2026, through May 21, 2026, does not meet criteria for educating the Student in her least restrictive environment. [34 CFR § 300.114]
Issue 3: The Parent alleged that the District implemented a significantly more restrictive program for the Student without an appropriate PPT determination. [34 CFR § 300.320]
Issue 4: The Parent alleged that the District had incorrectly recorded information or recorded information that is misleading in a restraint report. This issue did not require investigation. If a correction to education records is at issue, parents have the right to request an amendment to an education record. To address this issue, the Parent was directed to the process set forth under 34 CFR § 300.618-§300.620 (Amendment of Education Records). No further action was taken related to this issue.
Issue 5: The Parent alleged that the District had used restraint on the Student in non-emergency situations. [CGS § 10-236b(b)]
Issue 6: The Parent alleged that the District had included inappropriate data in the Student’s restraint reports in that they include subjective or unsupported statements. This issue did not require investigation.
With regard to the allegation of statements that are subjective in nature included in the Student’s restraint reports, the statute (CGS § 10-236b(j)(l)) does not require or offer guidance on the nature of the subjectivity of those statements. Therefore, there is no potential violation of special education regulations with this allegation, and was not investigated.
With regard to the allegation of unsupported statements included in the Student’s restraint reports, if the Parent feels that this causes the Student’s education record to contain inaccurate or misleading information, the Parent may request that the district amend the information using the process to amend education records previously discussed under Issue 4. No further action was taken related to unsupported statements included in the restraint reports.
Issue 7: The Parent alleged that the District executed improper disciplinary actions (i.e., the suspension of the Student) in response to behavior related to the Student’s disability. [34 CFR § 300.530]
Issue 8: The Parent alleged that concerns regarding the Student’s fine motor skills and pencil grip have been raised, but such skills have not been evaluated. [34 CFR § 300.304(c)(6)]
Issue 9: The Parent alleged that the District had not provided for meaningful parent participation and made predeterminations outside of the PPT meetings. [34 CFR § 300.501]
Conclusion(s)
Regarding Issue 1, based on a review of the available materials for this complaint, the District has, in place, an appropriate PPT-developed IEP for the Student which addresses both the Student’s behavioral/safety needs and transition-related needs. The Parent is not in agreement with that IEP and, so, has chosen not to send the Student to school while that version of the Student’s IEP is in place. This is done in the absence of any certification from a medical provider that the Student is unable to attend school for medical reasons. Therefore, the Student is not eligible for homebound services. Further, the PPT has not changed the Student’s placement to ‘instruction in the home’, therefore the services typically provided when a Student is placed on instruction in the home are also not required. Under these circumstances, the District is not required to provide the full measure of IEP services in the home while the Parent does not send the Student to school. It was concluded that the District was not in violation of 34 CFR § 300.101 and no corrective actions were issued.
Regarding Issues 2 and 3, the Student’s IEP previously included a significantly greater percentage of time with non-disabled peers. However, the Student’s PPT placed her in a temporary, more restrictive environment (i.e., Learning Center) to stabilize her after the Student experienced significant dysregulation on multiple occasions which resulted in behaviors that, in order to maintain the Student’s safety, required that school staff restrain the Student. Concurrently, the District has added more behavioral supports to the IEP, recommended additional assessments to gain behavioral data, and developed a re-entry plan to return the Student to former levels of time with non-disabled peers. The change to the Student’s placement and the revision of the Student’s IEP to better support her behavioral regulation toward re-integration were made through the PPT process. It was concluded that the District was not in violation of 34 CFR § 300.114 and 34 CFR § 300.320. No corrective actions were issued.
Issue 4 did not require investigation.
Regarding Issue 5, a review of the Reports of Restraint for the incidents investigated indicates that, in each case, the Student was demonstrating behavior that presented as an emergency that placed her safety, and, in several cases, the safety of staff, at risk. It was concluded that the District was not in violation of CGS § 10-236b(b) and no corrective actions were issued.
Issue 6 did not require investigation.
Regarding Issue 7, the Parent alleged that the Student was disciplined for behaviors related to her disability. Regulatory requirements indicate that, for a Student with a disability who receives a disciplinary change in placement of more than ten cumulative school days in a school year, an MDR must be conducted to review if the behavior was related to the Student’s disability and, if it was, the District must take immediate steps to provide remedy. However, the Student did not reach the ten-day threshold for disciplinary change in placement and, therefore an MDR was not required, and was subject to the same disciplinary measures as non-disabled students; in this case, a suspension. It was concluded that the District was not in violation of 34 CFR § 300.530 and no corrective actions were issued.
Regarding Issue 8, at the Student’s March 19, 2026, PPT meeting, prior to the filing of this complaint, the District agreed with the Parent that a fine motor evaluation was recommended as part of the Student’s three-year evaluation. The District also acknowledged their role in initially misinforming the Parent as related to evaluation consent procedures, which delayed obtaining consent for the three-year evaluation, including the fine motor evaluation. However, this was corrected in April 2026, and the District awaited consent to conduct a fine motor evaluation as part of the Student’s three-year evaluation. The District had not refused to conduct the fine motor evaluation, but was responsible for creating confusion which resulted in its initial delay of consent. However, the fine motor evaluation was then delayed while awaiting consent from the Parent. In this case, at present, both parties, the District and the Parent, share the responsibility for the fine motor evaluation not being underway. It is this investigator’s conclusion that the District had not refused to conduct such evaluation and therefore is not in violation of 34 CFR § 300.304(c)(6). Since the District had already agreed, prior to the filing of this complaint, to conduct the fine motor evaluation requested by the Parent, no corrective action was necessary. The Parent was encouraged to consider providing consent for that evaluation expediently.
Regarding Issue 9, a review of the procedures followed by the District to ensure the Parent’s participation in the Student’s PPT meetings indicated that those procedures were followed. Further, the District acknowledged engagement in preparatory activities prior to the Student’s PPT meetings in order to develop proposals to present at the meetings. As this is explicitly permitted in federal interpretations of the regulation, this is not considered predetermination. It was concluded that the District did not violate 34 CFR § 300.501 and no corrective actions were issued.
Corrective Action(s)
None