VIA FACSIMILE (860-807-2049) AND US MAIL
Theresa DeFrancis, Esq.
Due Process Unit
Bureau of Special Education and Pupil Services
State Department of Education
25 Industrial Park Road
Middletown, CT 06457-1543
Re: NAME (DOB 00/00/00)
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing, on behalf of STUDENT NAME and his mother, PARENT NAME, to request a due process hearing. STUDENT is an 8th grade student attending SCHOOL NAME in CITY. Despite PPT meetings on June 5, 2003 and June 18, 2003, we have failed to reach agreement with the school.
The student and his parent complain that STUDENT has been denied a free appropriate public education as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in that:
1. SCHOOL DISTRICT NAME failed to refer the student for evaluations for special education and related services in accordance with 20 USC § 1412 and Conn. Agencies Regs. § 10-76d-7 despite the following indicators for referral:
2. student’s attendance has been unsatisfactory since 1st grade (1994-1995 school year);
3. student’s academic progress has been unsatisfactory since 2nd grade (1995-1996 school year);
4. student was retained in 5th grade and passed by exception in 3rd grade and 7th grade;
5. student scored Level 1, requiring intervention, on both Reading and Writing on Grade
6 Connecticut Mastery Test; and 6. 7th grade teacher indicated in Section IV of the cumulative record that he or she “recommend[ed] for testing for Sept. 1.”
1. SCHOOL DISTRICT NAME has failed to provide appropriate evaluations in accordance with 20 U.S.C. § 1414 and Conn. Agencies Regs. § 10-76d-9 in that:
2. the school has refused to complete a neuropsychological evaluation;
3. the school has refused to provide a trial placement for diagnostic purposes to assess STUDENT’s needs, in accordance with Conn. Agencies Regs. § 10-76d-14(b);
4. the school offered to complete a psychiatric assessment, but refused to provide such evaluation by a bilingual psychiatrist, instead offering to use an interpreter; and
5. the school completed a psychological evaluation in December 2002, which it now indicates was not performed in the child’s dominant language.
(3) SCHOOL DISTRICT NAME has failed to provide an individualized education plan, program, or placement that meets the student’s needs, in violation of 20 U.S.C. § 1414 and Conn. Agencies Regs. § 10-76d-11, 10-76d-14, and 10-76d-16;
The student proposes the following resolution:
a complete neuropsychological evaluation, conducted by NAME OF DOCTOR, a neuropsychologist who is bilingual (Spanish and English) and has expertise in bi-lingual assessments;
a trial placement for diagnostic purposes at the NAME OF SCHOOL, to comply with Conn. Agencies Regs. § 10-76d-14(b);
the neuropsychologist and trail placement will work in conjunction with each other to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of STUDENT’s functional abilities; the functional impact of auditory processing; and the relationship between language difficulties, organization, sleep arousal, emotional status, social interactions, and internal speech;
compensatory education, the details of which would be determined by a PPT following completion of the requested evaluations; and
the parties would agree that due process is available to the student should there be a dispute about the details of compensatory education.
The student requests mediation. This request has been discussed with ATTORNEY FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT and she indicated that the school is willing to participate in mediation.
Attorney for the Child
Cc: NAME, Principal, SCHOOL DISTRICT NAME, Staff Developer, SCHOOL DISTRICT Board of Education NAME, ATTORNEY FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT NAME