POLICY LETTER: December 12, 2007 to Connecticut Attorney David Shaw
Home » Policy Documents » POLICY LETTER: December 12, 2007 to Connecticut Attorney David Shaw
POLICY LETTER: December 12, 2007 to Connecticut Attorney David Shaw MS Word
MS WORDPOLICY LETTER: December 12, 2007 to Connecticut Attorney David Shaw PDF
PDFView File
POLICY LETTER: December 12, 2007 to Connecticut Attorney David Shaw MS Word
Dated December 12, 2007Mr. David C. ShawAttorney at Law34 Jerome Avenue, Suite 210Bloomfield, Connecticut 06002-2463Dear Mr. Shaw:This is in response to your letter sent on behalf of your clients requesting that the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) provide an opinion on the validity of the policies and practices of the Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) as they pertain to oversight of special education programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). We apologize for the delay in this response. In your letter, you inquire about two issues: 1) whether the CSDE may change its practice and policy of allowing hearing officers to review the appropriateness and order the implementation of settlement agreements; and 2) whether CSDE may refuse to investigate and resolve complaints alleging that settlement agreements have not been implemented unless the terms of the agreement are incorporated into the child's IEP [Individualized Education Program]. You explain in your letter that your clients negotiated settlement agreements with the Stamford Board of Education in which they agreed to a process to determine regular class placement with appropriate supplementary aids and supports for your clients' children. Subsequently, your clients filed a complaint with the CSDE pursuant to the State complaint procedures alleging that the Stamford Board of Education was not implementing the settlement agreements reached by the parties. You state the CSDE responded through three different letters that it would not investigate or enforce the settlement agreements negotiated on behalf of your clients, but only provided two of those letters with your inquiry. The IDEA contemplates various means of resolving disputes with a local educational agency (LEA) relating to the identification, evaluation or educational placement of a child with a disability, or the provision of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) -- primarily, (1) mediation, as set out at 34 CFR 300.506; (2) the impartial due process hearing system under 34 CFR 300.507-300.517, that includes a new requirement for a pre-hearing resolution process at 34 CFR 300.510; and (3) the State complaint resolution system required in 34 CFR 300.151-300.153. In general, mediation involves the parents and school officials voluntarily meeting with an impartial third-party mediator to discuss and resolve any differences, including matters arising prior to the filing of a due process complaint. A written, signed mediation agreement is legally binding and enforceable in any State court of competent jurisdiction or in a district court of the United States. 20 U.S.C. 1415(e)(2)(F); 34 CFR 300.506(b)(7). As noted above, the 2004 Amendments to the IDEA added a resolution process when the parents request a due process hearing, providing the parties an opportunity for a pre-hearing meeting to resolve the dispute and, like mediation, providing for a written, signed agreement that is legally binding and enforceable in any State court of competent jurisdiction or in a district court of the United States. 20 U.S.C. 1415(f)(1)(B); 34 CFR 300.510. Thirdly, as a part of its general supervisory responsibility, the State educational agency (SEA) must adopt and implement complaint resolution procedures consistent with the requirements of 34 CFR 300.151-300.153. The State complaint procedures must be available for resolving any complaint that contains an alle/s/Patricia J. Guard Acting DirectorOffice of Special Education Programscc:Mr. Brian J. Cunnane, Acting Bureau ChiefConnecticut State Department of EducationBecause subsequent to your letter the final Part B regulations were published on August 14, 2006, our answers to your questions are based on the final regulations. Page PAGE 3 Mr. David C. Shaw
TOPIC ADDRESSED: Impartial Due Process Hearing
SECTION OF IDEA: Part B—Assistance for Education of All Children With Disabilities Section 615—Procedural Safeguards
idea_file-template-default single single-idea_file postid-46390 wp-custom-logo wp-embed-responsive with-font-selector no-anchor-scroll footer-on-bottom animate-body-popup social-brand-colors hide-focus-outline link-style-standard has-sidebar content-title-style-normal content-width-normal content-style-boxed content-vertical-padding-show non-transparent-header mobile-non-transparent-header kadence-elementor-colors elementor-default elementor-kit-82278
Last modified on April 26, 2017