New Fairfield Bd. of Educ., 125 LRP 10684 (SEA CT 03/28/25).

A Connecticut school district did not have to defend its refusal to provide IDEA services in a non-school setting after a preschool student with disabilities was disenrolled based on state vaccination requirements.

The student enrolled at the district during the 2024-2025 school year. Over winter break the student was involuntarily withdrawn from the district based on their noncompliance with Connecticut’s vaccination requirements. The student’s IEP provided for speech therapy, occupational therapy, and physical therapy, but they did not receive IEP services after their withdrawal from school. The parent had requested the IEP be amended to allow for services to be provided outside of the school building during a February team meeting, but the district denied the request. A due process complaint was filed against the district following the denial, alleging that the student was being denied FAPE. 

Ruling for the district, the Hearing Officer determined that the parent’s complaint did not meet the legal requirements for a due process complaint under the IDEA. Parents are entitled to bring a due process complaint when there are disputes relating to a student’s identification, evaluation, education placement, or special education services. 34 CFR 300.507. Acknowledging that the complaint was filed after the district denied the parent’s request to amend the IEP, the Hearing Officer rejected the parent’s argument that this complaint was about the child’s educational placement. The student’s eligibility for services was not in dispute, and both parties agreed that the special education services provided in the student’s IEP were proper. Additionally, the district was able to show that the student received school-based services without incident while the student was enrolled, and the parent did not request a non-school placement until after the student had been withdrawn for noncompliance.

At its core, the Hearing Officer argued, the parent’s complaint was really a challenge of the state’s vaccination requirements. His request for a change of placement was not based on educational concerns – it was based on his own disagreement with state law. Connecticut’s public health law does not allow preschool students to attend or enroll in school if they are not in compliance with the vaccination requirements, and it is undisputed that the student is currently ineligible to attend. These requirements apply equally to all students, regardless of whether they are eligible for special education services, so this was not an IDEA issue. Rather, the only barrier preventing the student from receiving the services in their current IEP was the parent’s continued noncompliance with the State’s vaccination requirements.

What does this mean for your district?

Parents are free to file an IDEA due process complaint whenever they believe their child’s educational placement is not meeting their disability-related needs. But when those complaints are based on challenges or factors that are not related to special education, districts will generally be able to secure a quick dismissal.

In September of 2024, 17 states filed a lawsuit challenging gender dysphoria as a protected disability under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. 29 U.S.C. § 794. However, the lawsuit challenged Section 504 broadly as unconstitutional and, at least initially, sought for the court to block enforcement of the law as a requested relief. The argument of the States in this lawsuit was that Section 504 does not come with its own funding for compliance; rather, the law places restrictions on states that they must adhere to in order to continue receiving any federal funding under any statute. The States further argued that this amounts to an unconstitutionally coercive condition on Federal spending. This type of law is unconstitutional because it gives the Federal government too much power over State actions and is contrary to federalism.

On February 20, 2025, the States walked back the argument on the constitutionality of Section 504 to the extent that it applies to the entirety of the law. The States clarified that they are not requesting the Court find Section 504 to be unconstitutional on its face, and the actual focus of the lawsuit was the addition of gender dysphoria as a recognized disability covered under the law.

Section 504 has broad-reaching effects for schools. Section 504 is a fundamental law that requires that schools do not discriminate against students with disabilities via accommodation in order to receive a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). Currently, Section 504 could provide protections for students with gender dysphoria as students with disabilities that might require accommodations (i.e., allowing a student to use a private restroom). Of course, recent changes in Ohio laws that limit the use of multi-person restrooms and other facilities might limit the accommodations that are provided. These should still be taken into consideration for eligible students.

With the recent closure of seven U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights offices, including the Cleveland office, it is less clear whether and when any claims of discrimination under Section 504 might be investigated.

What does this mean for your District?

Currently, there is no telling how this will play out in the courts. Section 504 is still in effect, and nothing has changed in that regard. However, this is something to watch because while the states are no longer seeking to have Section 504 deemed unconstitutional, the argument to do so is spelled out for any future challenges.

With the release of the March 11, 2025 Organizational Chart, the Federal Administration announced the closing of six regional offices of the Office for Civil Rights, the agency designated to oversee and investigate allegations of discriminatory conduct in schools, including Section 504 complaints. The shuttered offices include the Boston, Dallas, New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and the Chicago/Cleveland offices, which included the only regional office with a physical presence in Ohio. The five remaining locations are in Denver, Kansas City, Seattle, Atlanta, and Washington, DC.

With persistent concerns about the timeliness of responses from the agency under the best of circumstances, the closing of these offices can be expected to cause greater delays in the complaint resolution process.

A review of the new Organizational Chart shows significant cuts in the following offices:

• Institute of Education Sciences: Responsible for analysis of statistical data and evaluation, and funding of federal programs
• Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development: Responsible for policy development, review, and implementation for the entire Department
• Office of Elementary and Secondary Education:  Responsible for “directing, coordinating and recommending policy for programs designed to help State and local educational agencies improve the achievement of preschool, elementary and secondary school students” and “support equal access to services to help every child achieve”
• Office of English Language Acquisition: Responsible for ensuring that English language learners and immigrant students attain English proficiency and achieve academic success (completely eliminated)

What this means for schools: It is yet to be seen how these drastic cuts in personnel and programming will ultimately impact the daily operations of local educational agencies. At the very least, schools should expect delays in processing and resolving complaints filed with OCR and possible changes in the level of express federal guidance on critical issues. The cuts at OCR are being challenged by 21 states in State of New York v. McMahon filed in the federal district court in Massachusetts.

Most educators were ready for a much deserved break as soon as the final school buses leave the building. While some things may resume at the start of the next school year, many mandates of the Individuals with Disabilities Act and Ohio Operating Standards do not take a summer break.

1. The 60-day timeline applies: Even if parents request an evaluation at the end of the school year, districts may not wait until the start of the 2024-2025 school year to complete the evaluation. Schools have thirty (30) calendar days after a request for an evaluation to obtain parent consent and only sixty (60) calendar days after consent to complete the evaluation. After that,  the IEP must be completed in thirty (30) days.

 If, for instance, the District tells a parent, “The beginning of the year will include a lot of review. Let’s set some things in place and wait until after the first 9 weeks next year. Then we’ll evaluate.” Caution is warranted.  Schools may not use interventions to delay an evaluation, and a parent may successfully argue that the school may have violated its Child Find obligation. Potential consequences could include corrective action or the parent being declared the prevailing party in a due process complaint with an award of attorney fees.

 2. Consulting with private schools: Each school district must engage in meaningful consultation with representatives of nonpublic schools within their jurisdiction. Since this includes discussions of how the consultative process will operate throughout the school year, it may be beneficial to engage in those conversations while school is not in session.

 3. ESY services include data collection: While IEP teams have already made ESY decisions for eligible students, data collection and progress monitoring during these summer sessions may prove critical for informing future services for the student as well as the necessity for ESY services in the future. Moreover, such documentation is important to establish that students received the required specially designed instruction and related services over the course of the summer program.

4. Due process timelines prevail: In the unfortunate circumstance of a due process complaint at the end of the school year or during the summer months, there is no flexibility to wait until the commencement of the new school year. Indeed, the absence of IEP team members or other witnesses during the summer months is not a justification for delaying the due process complaint. Moreover, schools need to prepare to conduct a resolution session within fifteen (15) days of the notice of the due process – with or without staff participation.