Complaint Summary

Date Findings Report Sent:

October 10, 2025

Case Number:

26-0072

Grade Level:

High school

Person filing complaint:

Parent

School District:

Trumbull Public Schools

Allegation(s):

• 34 CFR §§ 300.105(a)(1) failure to ensure that extended school year services are available as necessary to provide FAPE, consistent with paragraph (a)(2) of this section. (2) Extended school year services must be provided only if a child’s IEP Team determines, on an individual basis, in accordance with §§300.320 through 300.324, that the services are necessary for the provision of FAPE to the child.
• 34 CFR § 300.503(b)(7) and RCSA § 10-76d-8(a) failure to provide prior written notice to include (1) A description of the action proposed or refused by the agency;(2) An explanation of why the agency proposes or refuses to take the action; (3) A description of each evaluation procedure, assessment, record, or report the agency used as a basis for the proposed or refused action; (4) A statement that the parents of a child with a disability have protection under the procedural safeguards of this part and, if this notice is not an initial referral for evaluation, the means by which a copy of a description of the procedural safeguards can be obtained; (5) Sources for parents to contact to obtain assistance in understanding the provisions of this part; (6) A description of other options that the IEP Team considered and the reasons why those options were rejected; and (7) A description of other factors that are relevant to the agency’s proposal or refusal.
• 34 CFR § 300.501(b)(1) failure to afford parents of a child with a disability an opportunity to participate in meetings with respect to 34 CFR § 300.501(b)(i) the identification, evaluation, and education placement of the child and 34 CFR § 300.501(b)(ii) the provision of FAPE to the child.

Conclusion(s):

• The team did not engage in a direct discussion of the Student’s eligibility for ESY services. Rather than applying the Connecticut state standard reviewing both regression/recoupment criteria or nature or severity of the student’s disability (non-regression) criteria for determining the need for ESY services, the conversation shifted to a specific program and used the term “summer experience”. Ultimately, a default determination was made as the IEP developed at a PPT meeting, indicating that ESY services are not required. Even though the District did offer a summer experience at the PPT meeting, ESY was continually marked as not required for the Student to receive FAPE. Therefore, the District is in violation of 34 CFR § 300.106(a)(1) because the District did not make a determination, on an individual basis, if the ESY services were necessary for the provision of FAPE. The District did not create a PWN to reflect either the proposal or refusal of ESY services and therefore they are in violation of 34 CFR § 300.503(b)(7) and RCSA § 10-76d-8(a). The District’s failure to provide clear language, documentation, and timelines related to ESY services and summer experiences potentially impeded the Parent’s ability to effectively engage in discussions and planning related to the provision of FAPE for the Student. Consequently, it cannot be conclusively determined whether the District violated 34 CFR § 300.501(b)(1); however, recommendations will be provided.

Corrective Action(s):

• The District is required to provide training for high school special education staff on all laws, regulations, and best practices related to ESY eligibility determinations and coinciding required documentation.