Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State attorney flags possible legal violations at Connecticut technical high schools over admissions and exclusions
Summary
The board heard a legal review alleging that a technical high school system used a review panel to deny or exclude students without required special‑education planning meetings; the system has begun reforms including a randomized lottery and abolition of the review panel.
A legal update to the State Board on March 5 raised concerns about admission and exclusion practices at the Connecticut Technical Education and Career System (CTECS). The lawyer briefing the board said CTECS’ prior practice relied on an internal review panel to screen students and that, during the 2023-24 school year, the panel declined admission to 58 applicants; a disproportionate share of those excluded were students with disabilities.
What the attorney reported: The presenter said the statutory process requires a planning and placement team (PPT) meeting before a special‑education student enrolls in a technical education and career school so the student’s individualized education program (IEP) can be adjusted for the new placement. The attorney said CTECS’ review panel process bypassed those PPT meetings in many cases and that, for some excluded students, the record suggested they were denied placement without the PPT assessment required by federal and state special‑education law. “They never had an IEP PPT meeting,” the attorney said, and he called that omission a potential legal violation.
System response and changes: The transcript records that CTECS leadership has abolished the state review panel, instituted a randomized lottery for admissions, consulted with the department’s regional school‑choice staff, and ordered corrective steps. The presenter said the system cooperated with document requests and that leaders instituted a lottery after receiving some 6,000 applicants for roughly 2,800 seats.
Why it matters: The attorney framed the question as one of due process for students with disabilities and cited federal special-education protections, including that disciplinary exclusions and placement changes must include team determinations about manifestations of disability.
Ending: The transcript shows the board’s legal adviser and CTECS leadership exchanging documents and preparing follow-up; the board did not issue a final legal finding at the meeting but the transcript records system reforms and a continuing review of the matter.
