POLICY LETTER: March 24, 2003 to Connecticut Commissioner of Education Theodore S. Sergi

Dated March 24, 2003Honorable Theodore S. SergiCommissioner of EducationConnecticut State Board of EducationP.O. Box 2219Hartford, Connecticut 06145Dear Commissioner Sergi:I am writing in response to your letter dated January 13, 2003, regarding Connecticut's Eligibility Documents and the Special Conditions attached to the federal Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 grant award under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In order to ensure consistency for all States with Special Conditions regarding State and district-wide assessment and alternate assessment reporting, your October 29, 2002 submission regarding your Special Conditions on Biennial Performance Reporting is being addressed under separate cover. I appreciate your statement in your January 13 letter that the State is pleased with the conditional approval of your application for federal funds under this program and that it is your intent to take whatever actions may be necessary to ensure consistency of your State's process with the requirements of the IDEA. As you are aware, it is the Department's position that Connecticut's prohibition of raising an issue in a due process hearing unless it was previously raised at a meeting of the planning and placement team (PPT) is inconsistent with the requirements of Part B. That is, the Department determined that R.C.S.A. Section 10-76h-3 is not consistent with the provisions of the IDEA that guarantee parents' right to a timely due process hearing on any matter related to the identification, evaluation or educational placement of a child with a disability or the provision of a free appropriate public education to that child. As part of the Special Conditions, the Department directed Connecticut to report on proposed legislative amendments and demonstrate good faith efforts in seeking appropriate revisions. Further, in the interim, under the Special Conditions and as part of the State's general supervisory responsibilities under 30 U.S.C. 1412(a)(11) and 34 C.F.R. 300.600, it must ensure that public agencies and other personnel responsible for implementing the IDEA do not prohibit a party from raising in a due process hearing, an issue that was not raised at a PPT meeting.Although I appreciate your efforts in beginning to address the Special Conditions regarding R.C.S.A. Section 10-76h-3 through proposed clarification and guidance, the Department has two concerns. The first issue is the failure to submit the progress reports on legislative amendments specified in the Special Conditions. The second issue concerns the content of the proposed memorandum addressed to Superintendents, Special Education Directors, Hearing Officers and the State Advisory Council. One of the Special Conditions on Connecticut's FY 2002 Part B grant included specific requirements for submission of progress reports by November 29, 2002 (with a draft of its proposed legislative amendment and its revised interpretations of or revisions to its regulations and any other eligibility documents containing the PPT requirement); by January 31, 2003 (with proposed statutory amendmentI look forward to our continued cooperation in this matter so that, together, we can ensure high expectations and results for children with disabilities so that no child is left behind.Sincerely,/s/Robert H. Pasternack, Ph.D.Page PAGE 3 - Honorable Theodore S. Sergi