Torrington 27-0007

Complaint Summary

Date Findings Report Sent

September 4, 2026

Case Number

27-0007

School District

Torrington Public Schools/APSEP (single student)

Person filing complaint

Parent

Grade Level

Middle School

Allegation(s)

Issue 1: The Parent alleged that prior to attending the APSEP, the District did not provide the Student with educational services from September 2025 through December 2025. (34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17(d) and RCSA § 10-76d-1(a)(1))

Issue 2: The Parent alleged that the District and APSEP failed to provide appropriate behavioral supports and de-escalation. (34 CFR § 300.324(a)(2)(i))

Issue 3: The Parent alleged that the incidents of restraint on March 25, 2026, April 16, 2026, and June 26, 2026, were unjustified and unnecessary. (CGS § 10-236b(b))

Issue 4: The Parent alleged that the Student’s behavior intervention plan (BIP) was not implemented prior to incidents of restraint on March 25, 2026, April 16, 2026, and June 26, 2026. The Parent further alleged that the Student has not consistently been provided with one-to-one paraeducator support in accordance with her IEP and specifically on April 16, 2026. (34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17(d) and RCSA § 10-76d-1(a)(1))

Issue 5: The Parent alleged that she was not provided the required notification and paperwork for the incidents of restraint on March 25, 2026, April 16, 2026, and June 26, 2026. The Parent further alleged that the reports that she received were inaccurate, incomplete, and inadequate. (RCSA § 10-76b-9)

Conclusion(s)

Issue 1: In response to the Parent’s refusal to send the Student to the RESC program at the PPT meeting held on September 2, 2025, the parent and/or student input section of the IEP indicated that the RESC program agreed to provide an interim virtual academic option along with virtual counseling while the District explored a new educational placement for the Student (Fact #4). The PPT recommendations and the special education and related services grid in the IEP dated September 2, 2025, continued to recommend the Student’s full day in-person services and placement at the RESC program. While a new educational placement was sought, the Student received minimal virtual instruction and completed asynchronous work. However, the amount of virtual instruction was never defined or recommended in the Student’s IEP or the PWN provided to the Parent. Once accepted to attend the APSEP, at a PPT meeting held on October 17, 2025, it was recommended for the Student to receive 9.75 hours of academic instruction and 0.25 hours of counseling through virtual tutoring pending the APSEP’s hiring of a one-to-one paraeducator to support the Student (Fact #18). On November 3, 2026, the Parent reached out to the District inquiring about the status of the tutoring as the Student had received no form of schooling since October 15, 2025. While the District responded that they had a tutor available, they did not follow up with the Parent when she did not respond to their email (Fact # 22). The Parent responded on November 18, 2025, and the Student was provided with 5.25 hours of virtual tutoring between November 20, 2025, and November 25, 2025. The Student then began attending the APSEP in-person on December 1, 2025.

Between October 27, 2025 (the implementation date of the IEP dated October 17, 2025), and November 26, 2025, the Student should have received 48.75 hours of academic instruction and 1.25 hours of counseling. Instead, the Student received 5.25 hours of academic instruction and no counseling services. Therefore, the District is in violation of 34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17(d) and RCSA § 10-76d-1(a)(1). Corrective action is required.

Issue 2: The Student’s IEPs throughout the 2025‑2026 school year required the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports when behavior impeded learning and repeatedly referenced a behavior intervention plan and functional behavioral assessment. Despite these requirements, the Student did not have an active BIP in place until June 11, 2026. The District and APSEP carried over behavioral goals, objectives, and accommodations from one IEP to the next, referencing a BIP that had been discontinued by the Student’s previous program in April 2025, resulting in IEPs that inaccurately described the behavioral interventions available to the Student for almost an entire school year.

While PPT meetings were convened in January 2026, April 2026, and May 2026, revisions to the IEP were minimal and did not directly impact or address the areas of concern for the Student despite documented significant behavioral concerns, including frequent classroom avoidance, refusal to follow staff directions, and behaviors that consistently impeded academic progress. The IEP dated April 28, 2026, did not include any revisions to the Student’s goals and objectives or supplementary aids or services despite information gathered through the process of conducting an FBA. Although the APSEP noted the use of schoolwide PBIS and provided one-to-one paraeducator support, these interventions/supports alone do not satisfy the IDEA’s requirement to provide individualized behavioral supports when a student’s behavior interferes with their learning or the learning of others. Furthermore, behavioral intervention plans are not active treatment plans as indicated by the APSEP and do not require a guardian’s signature before implementation (Fact #40). The APSEP’s position that implementation of the BIP was delayed due to revisions and the need for the Parent’s signature resulted in the Student not having an individualized behavioral intervention plan following the completion of an FBA and during a period of documented behavioral escalation.

Given the lack of an active BIP, the continuation of outdated behavioral goals and accommodations, and the failure to timely provide individualized behavioral supports aligned with the Student’s needs, the District and APSEP are in violation of 34 CFR § 300.324(a)(2)(i) which requires that the IEP team, in the case of a child whose behavior impedes the child's learning or that of others, consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports and other strategies to address that behavior as well as 34 CFR § 300.324(b)(i) which requires that each public agency must ensure that the IEP Team reviews the child’s IEP periodically, but not less than annually, to determine whether the annual goals for the student are being achieved; and revise the IEP, as appropriate. Corrective action is required.

Through the course of this investigation, it was noted that progress reports on IEP goals and objectives were not completed in CT-SEDS during the 2025-2026 school year except for a progress report on IEP goals and objectives generated on July 9, 2026. The APSEP provided progress reports on IEP goals and objectives to the Parent at PPT meetings in pdf format, but none of these reports were uploaded or generated in CT-SEDS. Furthermore, the progress reports across reporting periods indicated limited/minimal progress across goal areas despite minimal revisions made to the Student’s IEPs. Therefore, the District and APSEP are in violation 34 CFR § 300.324(b)(ii) which requires that the Planning and Placement Team revise the IEP, as appropriate, to address (A) any lack of expected progress toward the annual goals and in the general education curriculum; (B) the results of any reevaluation; (C) information about the child provided to, or by, the parents; and (D) the child’s anticipated needs, for not revising the Student’s IEP to address the lack of expected progress on IEP goals and objectives. Corrective action is required.

Issue 3: The incident reports indicated that on March 25, 2026, the Student became dysregulated after being told she could not bring breakfast into the school and subsequently attempted to break the front door by repeatedly kicking it. Staff documented the use of prevention strategies prior to the restraint, including verbal redirection, problem solving, offering choices, use of a calm tone, and redirection to a calm area. Staff identified an imminent risk of injury due to the potential for the glass in the door to break, and the restraint was administered by trained personnel until the Student was no longer a risk to herself.

The actions described in the APSEP’s ESI Report and CT‑SEDS incident report are consistent with an emergency intervention used to prevent immediate or imminent injury and not for discipline, convenience, or as a substitute for a less restrictive alternative.

The incident reports and video footage indicated that on April 16, 2026, the Student repeatedly refused directives, entered an unauthorized building, and attempted multiple times to push through staff to access a different location in the building. Staff documented the use of prevention strategies prior to the restraint, including de‑escalation, offering choices and supports, planned ignoring, proximity, and withdrawal of demands. Despite these efforts, the Student continued to push forcefully through staff, and staff identified an imminent risk of injury due to the Student’s aggressive physical contact. The video footage confirmed repeated attempts by the Student to push past staff, followed by two restraints administered by trained personnel and released once the Student no longer posed a risk.

The incident reports and video footage support that the restraints were used in response to immediate or imminent risk of injury and not for discipline, convenience, or as a substitute for a less restrictive alternative.

The incident reports and video footage indicated that on June 26, 2026, the Student repeatedly attempted to access another student who was actively dysregulated and being restrained, despite verbal redirection, proximity-based blocking, and other documented de‑escalation strategies. The Student pushed past staff and grabbed a staff member’s arm while continuing to attempt to reach the peer. Staff identified an imminent risk of harm to themselves and to the other student, and the restraint applied was brief, administered by trained personnel, and released almost immediately.

Although the Student’s one‑to‑one paraeducator was present for much of the incident, the video footage indicated minimal engagement, use of his cell phone, and a two‑minute absence immediately preceding the Student being restrained. While the paraeducator’s actions raise concern, they do not alter the determination that the restraint itself was used in response to an immediate or imminent risk of injury and not for discipline, convenience, or as a substitute for a less restrictive alternative.

Therefore, the APSEP is not in violation of CGS § 10‑236b(b) with respect to the use of restraint as an emergency intervention on March 25, 2026, April 16, 2026, and June 26, 2026. No corrective action, however, see the recommendation below.

Issue 4: The Student’s BIP included individualized prevention, reinforcement, and reactive strategies requiring active engagement by the Student’s one-to-one paraeducator, including consistent reminders of the point sheet, offering breaks and choices, use of calm tone and appropriate proximity, and continuous behavior specific praise for replacement behaviors. The APSEP reported that staff used a calm tone, praise, coaching, and redirection prior to the incident of restraint on June 26, 2026; however, the video footage indicated that the Student’s one-to-one paraeducator provided minimal engagement, was observed using a cell phone, and was absent from the Student for approximately two minutes immediately before the incident of restraint occurred. While the video footage did not include audio, the body language and level of engagement observed between the Student and the one-to-one paraeducator does not suggest that staff offered breaks, space, choices, point sheet reminders, behavior specific praise, or other individualized strategies required by the Student’s BIP during the period of time leading up to the incident of restraint. While general de‑escalation practices were used, the individualized supports and staff actions required by the BIP were not implemented as written.

It is concluded that the APSEP did not implement the Student’s BIP with fidelity prior to the incident of restraint on June 26, 2026, and therefore the APSEP is in violation of 34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17(d) and RCSA § 10-76d-1(a)(1) with regards to the implementation of the BIP and the Student’s one-to-one paraeducator on April 16, 2026, and June 26, 2026. Corrective action is required.

Issue 5: Incident reports of emergency restraint entered into CT-SEDS are not visible to parents through the CT-SEDS Parent Portal. The reports must be printed and sent to parents to comply with the notification requirement of RCSA § 10-76b-9. The incident reports of emergency restraint were not printed and mailed to the Parent within two business days of the incidents of restraint for this investigation. While this investigator reviewed emergency safety intervention (ESI) documentation provided by the APSEP, the incident report in CT-SEDS is the required incident report that is provided to a parent following the emergency use of physical restraint or seclusion. The incident report of emergency restraint for the incident of restraint that occurred on June 26, 2026, was not generated in CT-SEDS until July 3, 2026, which was beyond the two-business day requirement. The Parent did not receive the incident report of emergency restraint from CT-SEDS or the APSEP’s ESI report within two business days after the four incidents of restraint and therefore the APSEP is in violation of RCSA § 10-76b-9. Corrective action is required.

The video footage of the incident on April 16, 2026, confirmed that there were two separate incidents of restraint that occurred that morning. The APSEP reported and documented the incident as one restraint lasting the entire duration of the incident. Approximately four and a half minutes elapsed between the first restraint and the second restraint. While the APSEP’s ESI report identified the second restraint, as explained above the CT-SEDS incident report is the required report. The incidents of restraint should have been documented separately. The APSEP is in violation of RCSA § 10-76b-9 for not properly documenting and notifying the Parent of the restraint that occurred at 9:15am on April 16, 2026. Corrective action is required.

The incident reports of emergency restraint generated in CT-SEDS for March 25, 2026, April 16, 2026, and June 24, 2026, contained the minimally required information for parental notification in accordance with RCSA § 10-76b-9. The concerns with the APSEP’s ESI reports are outside of the scope of the state complaint process as their internal documentation is not outlined or required by the IDEA or RCSA. While the APSEP is not in violation of RCSA § 10-76b-9 as it pertains to the emergency reports generated for March 25, 2026, April 16, 2026 (first restraint), and June 24, 2026, see the recommendation below.

Corrective Action(s)

  1. The District must create and provide a compensatory education plan for the Student due to lack of instruction in the fall of the 2025-2026 school year.  The Student is to receive 43.5 hours of academic instruction and 1.25 hours of counseling services.  A copy of the compensatory education plan must be provided to this investigator on or before October 4, 2026.  The District must provide this office with first of the month updates including documentation of the delivery of services until the compensatory education hours are delivered in full.  All services under the compensatory education plan must be delivered on or before June 30, 2027. 

If the Parent feels that such compensatory services would be overly burdensome or stressful to the student, the Parent, in collaboration with the District, through the PPT process, may determine an alternate number of compensatory service hours or identify alternative compensatory service strategies, methods or programs to compensate the Student.  Alternative compensatory services must be agreed upon and reported to the CSDE within 30 calendar days of this letter.  If the Parent and District cannot reach a mutual agreement regarding alternative compensatory services, then the corrective action item stands as ordered. The Parent has the right to decline in part or whole the compensatory education services in writing awarded to the Student.

  1. The District and APSEP must convene a PPT meeting to review and revise the Student’s IEP no later than October 2, 2026, to accurately reflect present levels of performance, current behavioral supports and interventions, and revise goals and objectives and accommodations to ensure alignment with the Student’s present levels of performance and documented behavioral needs.
  2. The District and APSEP must provide training to Student’s IEP Team members from the 2025-2026 school year on the requirements of:
    1. 34 CFR § 300.324(a)(2)(i) which requires that the IEP team, in the case of a child whose behavior impedes the child's learning or that of others, consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports and other strategies to address that behavior.
    2. 34 CFR § 300.324(b)(i) which requires that each public agency must ensure that the IEP Team reviews the child’s IEP periodically, but not less than annually, to determine whether the annual goals for the student are being achieved; and revise the IEP, as appropriate.
    3. 34 CFR § 300.324(b)(ii) which requires that the Planning and Placement Team revise the IEP, as appropriate, to address (A) any lack of expected progress toward the annual goals and in the general education curriculum; (B) the results of any reevaluation; (C) information about the child provided to, or by, the parents; and (D) the child’s anticipated needs.

The content of the training as well as staff signatures and date must be provided to this investigator no later than October 5, 2026.

  1. The APSEP must provide training to all staff (including the Student’s one-to-one paraeducator) responsible for the implementation of the Student’s BIP on the individualized prevention, reinforcement, and reactive strategies required by the plan. Staff signatures and date verifying the training must be provided to this investigator no later than September 21, 2026.
  2. The APSEP must provide this investigator with documentation confirming that the Student’s one-to-one paraeducator support has been provided in accordance with the Student’s IEP. Monthly updates must begin on October 1, 2026, and include information for September 2026. First of the month updates for the previous month must be provided to this investigator through January 4, 2027, assuming the recommendation remains in the Student’s IEP.
  3. The APSEP must communicate to all staff that Incident Reports of Emergency Restraint/Seclusion are not available to parents through the Parent Portal in CT-SEDS.  Reports must be sent to parents directly. This can be done through professional development or through email. The APSEP will inform this office once the information has been shared.
  4. The APSEP must properly document the second restraint that occurred on April 16, 2026. The incident report of emergency restraint must be finalized in CT-SEDS and provided to the Parent no later than September 9, 2026.

Recommendations

  1. It is strongly recommended that the APSEP address staff supervision and engagement when a student is dysregulated to reduce the likelihood of future incidents of restraint.
  2. It is strongly recommended that the APSEP ensure consistent and accurate reporting of incidents of restraint on the incident report of emergency restraint in CT-SEDS and the APSEP’s internal documentation and forms.
  3. It is strongly recommended that the APSEP generate or upload their own progress reports on IEP goals and objectives in CT-SEDS to ensure that the progress reports on IEP goals and objectives are included in students’ electronic education records (CT-SEDS).