Complaint Summary
Date Findings Report Sent
October 13, 2026
Case Number
27-0094
School District
West Haven Public Schools
Person filing complaint
Parents and Advocate
Grade Level
Elementary School
Allegation(s)
Issue 1: Parents allege that the District failed to appropriately revise the Student’s IEP at the annual review held on October 14, 2025, despite Parent concerns and lack of progress. Parents further allege that present levels and recommended services remained largely unchanged and that the Student’s limited progress and functioning were not adequately addressed through the programming provided between October 14, 2025, and May 18, 2026. (34 CFR § 300.324(a)(1) and 34 CFR § 300.324(b)(ii))
Issue 2: The Parents allege that following the PPT meeting held on April 27, 2026, the District continued to provide the Student’s prior half day program and did not implement the changes to the Student’s in-district programming, including increased services and full day programming, during the period from May 18 to June 19, 2026. (34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17, RCSA § 10-76d-1(a))
Issue 3: The Parents allege that the District failed to provide Prior Written Notices (PWN) and the finalized Individualized Education Programs (IEP) according to required timelines following the PPT meetings on April 27, 2026, and July 10, 2026. (RCSA §10-76d-8(a)(5) and RCSA §10-76d-13(a)(6))
Conclusion(s)
Issue 1: This investigation determined that two finalized IEPs were generated for the same Annual Review PPT meeting held on October 14, 2025, and Parents accessed both version through the CT-SEDS Parent Portal (Facts #3–5). Present levels of performance were not updated; additional communication goals and objectives were added to the later IEP version. Although 34 CFR § 300.324 requires that a PPT develop, review, and revise an IEP, section 614(d)(3)(D) of H.R. 1350 indicates the parents and the school may agree not to convene a PPT for the purpose of making changes, and instead may develop a written document to amend or modify the student’s current IEP. While the District states that the IEP generated on October 24, 2025, was the final IEP and reflected programming in place for the student from October 28, 2025, through to May 18, 2026, the District did not amend the first IEP nor was the PPT reconvened to discuss and agree upon the changes. Therefore, the district is in violation of this special education law. Corrective action is required.
Under 34 CFR § 300.324(a)(1), the PPT must consider the strengths of the child, the concerns of the parents, the results of the initial or most recent evaluation of the child, and the academic, developmental, and functional needs of the child. Per Facts #8-14, the District reviewed multiple sources of information to revise the IEP at the October 14, 2025, PPT meeting for the purpose of conducting the students annual review. March and June 2025 progress reports showed largely limited/minimal progress (Fact #9), yet the pre‑academic goal and first three objectives were continued without change.
In addition to communication delays and functional difficulties, related service provider reports documented challenging behaviors including but not limited to biting, elopement, dropping to the ground, climbing and jumping off furniture, and throwing or banging items (Facts #12- 13). Despite these concerns, only one new objective, addressing calming strategies, was added under the pre-academic goal, and the recommended BCBA consult was not correctly documented in indirect services. Although the Student’s behavior was documented as impeding learning, no goals were added in the areas of behavior or social‑emotional functioning (Facts #17-18). The most substantial revision to this Students’ previous IEP was in the communication goals, while direct and indirect services were largely unchanged across areas. These revisions did not align with the concerns reviewed, including the Student’s limited progress on previous goals and objectives and severity of documented behaviors. Therefore, the District did not develop the IEP in accordance with 34 CFR § 300.324(a)(1). Corrective action is required.
Per 34 CFR § 300.324(b)(ii) the Planning and Placement Team must revise the IEP, as appropriate, to address any lack of expected progress toward the annual goals and in the general education curriculum, the results of any reevaluation, information about the child provided to, or by, the parents; and the child’s anticipated needs. Progress reports demonstrated limited or minimal progress across multiple areas: December 2025 reports showed 13 ratings of limited/minimal progress, 15 not introduced, two no progress to date, and three satisfactory across six goals, while March 2026 data continued to reflect 7 limited/minimal progress, 10 not introduced, 9 satisfactory, and 7 mastered ratings. Although one objective reflected decreased inappropriate behaviors as communication improved, the student’s progress over two reporting periods remained limited or not introduced for more than half of all goals and objectives.
While the District stated that no concerns were shared after the October 14, 2025, PPT meeting, Parents provided an Independent Educational Evaluation incurred at parent expense to the Student’s Special Education Teacher in January 2026 and emailed the Director and Assistant Director of Pupil Services expressing significant concerns (Facts #23-25). The PPT did not reconvene until April 27, 2026, after two reporting periods reflecting limited and inconsistent progress, more than three months after Parents shared the IEE incurred at parent expense, and approximately six weeks after Parents raised concerns.
The District did not revise the IEP between October 2025 and the April 27, 2026, PPT meeting despite evidence of limited progress and the IEE incurred at parent expense, an updated evaluation, was not considered in a timely manner. These facts support that the neither the IEP generated for the PPT meeting held on October 14, 2025, adequately addressed the Student’s academic, functional, and behavioral needs and nor did they reflect required revisions in response to lack of progress resulting in a violation of 34 CFR § 300.324(b)(ii). Corrective action is required.
Issue 2: 34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17, RCSA § 10-76d-1(a) require each board of education to provide in a timely way special education and related services in accordance with the Student’s IEP. At the April 27, 2026, PPT meeting, the team agreed to full day programming including increased services, and referrals to state approved private special education programs for immediate placement (Fact #29). Throughout the meeting, the Advocate and the Director of Early Childhood noted that the program developed on April 27, 2026, would be implemented in 15 days (Facts #34-35). Due to errors in the service grid, the finalized IEP required amendment, and the amended IEP reflects an implementation date of May 18, 2026 (Facts #37–40). Email correspondence on May 10, 2026, likewise identified May 18, 2026, as the implementation date for the services agreed upon at the April 27, 2026, PPT meeting.
Although the District maintains that its intention was for the Student to be placed in an Approved Private Special Education Program for the 2026–27 school year or as soon as space became available, these facts demonstrate that the April 27, 2026, IEP called for implementation of a full day program and increased services beginning May 18, 2026. It is acknowledged that the Director of Early Childhood stated during the PPT meeting that the District did not have an in-district full-day program for preschool (Facts #30 and #34-35).
The recording of the July 10, 2026, PPT confirms that the District continued to implement half day programming between May 18 and June 19, 2026 (Fact #44). As stated in Fact #46, the District documented denial of compensatory education, asserting that while the PPT recommended a full-time program for immediate placement, the District “continued providing IEP services while in search of placement.” The available evidence, including the July PPT recording, service documentation, and continued half day schedule, shows that the full day program, increased related services, and 1:1 supports described in the April 27, 2026, IEP were not implemented during this period.
Therefore, the District is in violation of 34 CFR § 300.323(c)(2), § 300.17, and RCSA § 10 76d 1(a) for failing to provide services in accordance with the IEP by not implementing the full day program and increased services agreed upon at the April 27, 2026, PPT by the required May 18, 2026, implementation date. Corrective action is required.
Issue 3: RCSA §10‑76d‑8(a)(5) requires that written notice may be provided to parents at the PPT meeting at which the team proposes or refuses to initiate or change a child’s identification, evaluation, educational placement, or the provision of FAPE. If notice is not provided at the meeting, it must be sent no later than ten days before the PPT proposes or refuses such actions. Additionally, RCSA §10‑76d‑13(a)(6) requires that a full copy of the IEP be sent to parents within five days after the PPT meeting at which the IEP is developed, reviewed, or revised.
Facts #50 and #54 demonstrate that the District failed to provide finalized IEPs within the five‑day timeline following both the April 27, 2026, and July 10, 2026 PPT meetings, in violation of RCSA §10‑76d‑13(a)(6). Additionally, several Prior Written Notices for the April 27, 2026, meeting were generated less than ten days before their implementation dates, and one was generated after the implementation date, which does not meet the timeline required under RCSA §10‑76d‑8(a)(5).
Email correspondence as outlined in Facts #47-49 and #52-53 show correspondence between the Advocate and Director of Early Childhood about the draft IEPs and Prior Written Notices. Although the Advocate made multiple requests to revise the IEP, it remained the District’s responsibility to finalize the IEP within the statutory five-day period and, if corrections were needed, to address them through an amendment or additional PPT as appropriate. Similarly, the District was responsible for ensuring timely issuance of Prior Written Notices. Further, as reflected in Facts #51 and 55, there were duplicate Prior Written Notices generated and several of the Prior Written Notices also selected Actions Proposed or Refused that did not align with the descriptions and reasons listed.
Therefore, it is determined, the District is in violation of RCSA §10‑76d‑8(a)(5) (timely written notice) and RCSA §10‑76d‑13(a)(6) (IEP provided within five days). Corrective actions are required.
Corrective Action(s)
- The Early Childhood Team must complete training through Connecticut State Department of Education’s CT-SEDS and IEP Quality Initiatives in the following areas:
- CT-SEDS technical accuracy, and
- IEP development, implementation, and progress monitoring and data-based IEP revision practices.
The dates of attendance at training and certificate of completion must be provided to this investigator as soon as possible and no later than May 1, 2027.
- The District Special Education Leadership must engage in Prior Written Notice for School Leaders and Procedural Foundations for School Leaders through the Connecticut State Department IEP Quality Initiative.
The dates of attendance at training and certificate of completion must be provided to this investigator as soon as possible and no later than May 1, 2027.
- The District must create and provide a compensatory education plan due to the failure to implement IEP services from May 18, 2026, through June 19, 2026. The Student is to receive the following: 36 hours of pre-academic skills, 3.5 hours 1:1 speech services, and 5 hours 1:1 occupational therapy services.
A copy of the compensatory education plan must be provided to this investigator or before November 16, 2026. The District must provide this office with first of the month updates on 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 August 18, 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 which must be reported to the CSDE. If the Parent and District cannot reach a mutual agreement regarding alternative compensatory service strategies, then the corrective action item stands as ordered.