Complaint Summary
Date Findings Report Sent
January 16, 2026
Case number
26-0269
School District
West Hartford Public Schools
Person filing the complaint
Parent
Grade Level
Elementary
Allegation(s)
The Parent alleged that upon request, the District refused to conduct a comprehensive evaluation with a focus on occupational and speech therapy for feeding and oral-motor concerns, and relied solely on academic performance in order to make a special education eligibility determination. (34 CFR § 300.304(c)(7) and 34 CFR § 300. 305(a))
The Parent alleged that the Prior Written Notice (PWN) from the Student’s PPT meeting was provided past the required timeline. (RCSA § 10-76d-8)
The Parent alleged that the mediation notice was not read aloud during the PPT meeting. (Section 45 of Public Act 23-137)
Conclusion(s)
Regarding Issue 1, to be found eligible for special education and related services, the PPT must determine that: (1) a student has a disability as defined by the IDEA or state statute and its implementing regulations; (2) that student’s disability adversely effects the student’s educational performance; and (3) by reason of the disability that student needs special education and related services.
The scope of the data considered by the Student’s PPT was sufficiently comprehensive to identify that no additional data was needed to determine that there were no adverse effects on the student’s educational performance related to the Student’s feeding and oral-motor skills. It was concluded that the District was not in violation of 34 CFR § 300.304(c)(7) or 34 CFR § 300. 305(a). No corrective actions were issued.
Regarding Issue 2, it was clear from electronic records that the PWN related to the Student’s PPT meeting was available in the Student’s CT-SEDS education records (including the Parent Portal) within the required timeline. It is also understood that the Parents did not refuse consent to accessing the Student’s education records through that venue. It is equally clear that the PWN was sent to the Parents by the District via email attachment within the required timeline.
What was not clear were two items: (1) whether there were issues that impacted the delivery of the email and attachment to the Parents, thereby interfering with their receipt of that PWN via email and (2) whether the District had clearly communicated to the Parents that the CT-SEDS Parent Portal would be the typical method used by the District in providing the Student’s education records to the Parents. In either case, the PWN was provided to the Parents within the required timeline. It was concluded that the District was not out of compliance with RCSA § 10-76d-8. No corrective actions were issued.
It was recommended, but not required, however, in order to avoid any possible future confusion, that the District consider a method to ensure that the parents of students with disabilities have a clear understanding that education records will be provided to them through the CT-SEDS Parent Portal unless otherwise specified.
Regarding Issue 3, it is understood that the notice of the availability of mediation services statement must be read aloud and distributed at PPT meetings. It remains undetermined whether that statement was actually read aloud at the Student’s PPT meeting. Both parties offer opposing positions and no clear evidence of the dialogue of that meeting has been submitted for consideration in this complaint investigation. That said, it is confirmed that the statement was made available on the PPT meeting agenda which was provided to the Parents and used at the PPT meeting. This satisfies the regulation’s distribution requirement. While this does not confirm that the statement was read aloud, in the absence of all other evidence, it does confirm that the Parent was informed of the availability of mediation services, which is the intent of the regulation. It was concluded that the District was not out of compliance with Section 45 of Public Act 23-137. No corrective actions were issued.
It was recommended, but not required, however, for possible future similar cases, that the District consider establishing a method to verify that the notice of the availability of mediation services statement was read aloud and distributed at each PPT meeting.
Corrective Action(s)
No required corrective action.