On January 11, 2022, the federal District Court for the District of Connecticut dismissed a lawsuit brought by two associations and three individuals against three
Continue Reading District Court Dismisses Challenge to Elimination of Religious Exemptions from School Vaccine Mandates
On June 10, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut ruled in A.R. v. Connecticut State Board of Education, 3:16-cv-01197 (CSH
Continue Reading State Appeals Decision Regarding Maximum Age of Eligibility for Special Education
On March 25, 2020, the Connecticut State Department of Education, Bureau of Special Education (BSE), issued guidance related to the implementation of continued educational opportunities
Continue Reading Bureau of Special Education Issues Guidance on Continued Educational Opportunities and Special Education During COVID-19 Pandemic
On January 23, 2020, the Connecticut State Department of Education (“SDE”) issued updated guidance on the timeline for initial special education evaluations (available here
Continue Reading SDE Issues Revised Guidance on Initial Evaluation Timelines: Federal Timeline Will No Longer Be Applicable Beginning 2020-2021
The Nutmeg Board of Education is getting ready to close out its books for the 2018-2019 school year, and some of the new Board members
Continue Reading SEE YOU IN COURT! – June 2019
On December 21, 2018, the Connecticut State Department of Education (“SDE”) published updated guidance addressing the timelines for initial evaluations of students being evaluated for
Continue Reading SDE Issues Guidance on Special Education Initial Evaluation Timelines
Originally appeared in the CAS Weekly Newsletter.
Written by attorney Thomas B. Mooney.
Dear Legal Mailbag:
I had a weird experience the other day that I need to share with you. A family new to the district came by to enroll their 4th grade daughter, and they stopped in to see me. I was delighted to welcome the newcomer to our happy little school. However, I was not happy to see her “best friend,” Woofy. I politely told the family that we do not allow dogs in our school, but they pushed back immediately. “Woofy,” the dad said, “is more than a dog, much more. Woofy is a service animal who provides emotional support for our daughter.”
I did my best to be polite, but Woofy was out of control, running around my office, sniffing everything in sight, and even licking my face. “Isn’t he great?” the dad asked rhetorically. “He brings such joy and comfort to our little girl.”
I admit that I am a cat person, but I am not anti-dog per se. However, I can’t imagine letting this “Woofy” creature into my school. Can I tell the family that Woofy belongs in the dog house? Please email me your answer, because the daughter is starting school tomorrow.
Thank you,
Dog Be Gone
Continue Reading CAS Legal Mailbag Question of the Week – 10/16/2018
On March 23, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an important precedential opinion in Mr. P. & Mrs. P. v. West Hartford Board of Education, 885 F.3d 735, (2d Cir. 2018). In its decision, the Second Circuit held that the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017), did not heighten the standard to assess whether a school district offered a student an individualized education program (“IEP”) that provided a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) in jurisdictions covered by the Second Circuit (Connecticut, New York and Vermont). The Second Circuit also ruled in favor of the school district, West Hartford, on all other issues, including numerous procedural claims, and rejected the parents’ request for a private transition program similar to the one offered by the district.
Continue Reading Second Circuit Holds Endrew F. Did Not Heighten FAPE Standard in Second Circuit; Rejects Parents’ Procedural Claims and Request for Private Transition Program
On March 27, 2018, the Connecticut State Department of Education (SDE) issued the long-awaited and much-anticipated Guidelines Regarding Independent Educational Evaluations at Public Expense and In-School Observations. These Guidelines are the result of months of study, review and participation by a Task Force and then an Advisory Work Group, including consultants within the SDE, parent advocates, school district personnel, educators, advisors and others. The Guidelines clarify the existing obligations of school districts with respect to independent educational evaluations (IEEs) pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
The Guidelines replace the SDE’s guidance memorandum titled Guidance Regarding Independent Educational Evaluations issued on June 9, 2015 and the memorandum titled Guidance Regarding Independent Educational Evaluations dated May 3, 2017. The Guidelines are the SDE’s interpretation of the applicable legal requirements for IEEs, including guidance letters from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Special Education Program (OSEP), and are not a replacement of the IDEA and its implementing regulations. Importantly, the new Guidelines seek to track the federal regulatory requirements and administrative guidance for IEEs.
Continue Reading SDE Issues New Guidelines for IEEs and In-School Observations
Anne Littlefield discusses steps to follow if a manifestation determination review reveals a substantial relationship between a student’s misbehavior and his or her disability. This article originally appeared in SpecialEdConnection®.
Download: Printable PDF
A middle school student with ADHD is suspended for 12 days after getting into a fight in the cafeteria. The student’s IEP team conducts a manifestation determination review and concludes that the student’s problem behavior was a manifestation of his disability. What must the district do next?
Under the IDEA, if a student’s behavior is found to be unrelated to her disability, then the district may impose the same consequences as it would for a student without a disability. However, if an MDR reveals that the student’s misbehavior was caused by or had a direct and substantial relationship to the student’s disability or was the direct result of the district’s failure to implement the student’s IEP, then the district must take the steps outlined below.
1. Examine the student’s behavior. Conduct a functional behavioral assessment (unless the district conducted an FBA before the behavior that resulted in the disciplinary removal) and implement a behavioral intervention plan for the student.
If a BIP has already been developed, review it and modify it as necessary to address the student’s behavior. 34 CFR 300.530 (f).
Closely examine the student’s environment and disability-related needs during the FBA, recommended Anne Littlefield, a school attorney with Shipman & Goodwin LLP in Hartford, Conn.
“We’re looking for what triggers the behavior — the conditions that lead to the behavioral incident,” she said. Such triggers might include time of day, unstructured settings, or certain activities, she said. Consider: Is the student trying to get out of a non-preferred activity? Is there a sensory issue at play?
Then, determine what strategies and supports can be put in place to prevent the student from engaging in those behaviors, Littlefield said. Update the behavioral goals and objectives section of the student’s IEP to reflect the new plan.
Continue Reading Anne Littlefield Quoted in Special Ed Connection Article “After the MDR: What to do if student’s misbehavior is manifestation of disability”