Complaint Summary

Date Findings Report Sent:

March 20, 2025

Case Number:

25-0344

Grade Level:

Middle

Person filing complaint:

Parent

School District:

Greenwich Public Schools (single student)

Allegation(s):

• Issue 1: The Parents claim that the Student did not make progress on his reading goals and objectives or communication goals and objectives and the PPT failed to address the Student’s lack of progress in these areas. The Parents further claim that the Student’s reported progress during the 2023-2024 school year did not match the Student’s present levels of performance and progress at the start of the 2024-2025 school year, despite receiving Extended School Year (ESY) services. 34 CFR § 300.101, 34 CFR § 300.324(b), and RCSA §10-76d-11
• Issue 2: The Parents claim that the District delayed generating and then implementing the agreed upon amendment to the Student’s IEP which provided for a consultation with contracted reading specialist. 34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17 and RCSA § 10-76d-1(a)(1)

Conclusion(s):

• Issue 1: 34 CFR § 300.101 requires that a local education agency must provide a FAPE to all children residing in its school district. 34 CFR § 300.324(b) and RCSA §10-76d-11 require the Planning and Placement Team to review the student’s IEP periodically, but not less than annually, to determine when the annual goals for the student are being achieved and to revise the IEP, as appropriate, to address any lack of expected progress toward the annual goals. At the time of the Student’s annual review PPT meeting on January 22, 2025, for the areas of Reading and Communication, the Student mastered 4 of his 14 goals. Most of the goals were written with objectives that were scaffolded based on the mastery of previous objectives. This resulted in a significant number of objectives not being introduced by the date of the Student’s annual review PPT meeting. In the November 26, 2024, progress report 14 out of 28 Reading objectives had not been introduced and 8 out of 17 Communication objectives had not been introduced. An IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable the Student to receive meaningful educational benefit. A Student would be denied a FAPE if his or her program is not likely to produce progress, or if the program affords the child only “trivial” or “de minimis” education benefit. Each Student’s educational program must be appropriately ambitious in light of his or her circumstances, and every student should have the chance to meet challenging objectives. After an IEP is developed, PPTs must review the Student’s IEP periodically, but not less than annually, to determine when the annual goals for the Student are being achieved and to revise the IEP, as appropriate, to address any lack of expected progress toward the annual goals. The Student’s IEP included a very high number of goals and objectives (27 goals and 101 objectives) across goal areas. Annual goals and objectives must be based on present levels of performance and should prioritize skills based on the immediate needs of the student. It is the responsibility of the PPT to ensure that the team is purposeful in the development of goals and objectives that are appropriate and meaningful, while also designed to be achieved within the one year timeframe. Inconsistencies and discrepancies in progress monitoring data were noted as well as concerns with the start date/implementation date of goals in the area of Reading. The Reading goals were described to this investigator as building upon one another and not being introduced all at the same time but through progression and following the development of skills within other goals. While objectives may be written to build upon previously mastered skills, annual goals are written based on present levels of performance and their implementation is not dependent on the mastery of other goals within the IEP. This concern with implementation dates of specific Reading goals along with District’s admission that in the area of Reading, “the level of prompting needed for the student to independently demonstrate the skills was not captured in the progress monitoring data” while in elementary school brings in to question the Student’s actual instruction, progress, and the use of progress monitoring to inform instruction during the time that the IEP dated February 1, 2024, was in effect. Specially designed instruction is defined as adapting the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction to address the unique needs of the Student to ensure access to the general curriculum so the student can meet the standards within the jurisdiction of the LEA that apply to all children. Without implementing the IEP services with fidelity and accurately progress monitoring data in the area of Reading, the Student’s unique needs and present levels of performance were unable to be utilized to drive the specially designed instruction. It is therefore determined that the District is in violation of 34 CFR § 300.101 as well as 34 CFR § 300.324(b) and RCSA §10-76d-11 based on the misrepresentation of the Student’s progress on IEP goals and objectives and full implementation of specific goals in the area of Reading for the duration of the IEP, the District’s failure to propose an IEP reasonably calculated to provide the Student with meaningful educational benefit, and not convening to address the Student’s lack of expected progress toward the annual goals in the areas of Reading and Communication prior to the annual review PPT meeting. Corrective action is required.
• Issue 2: 34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17, RCSA § 10-76d-1(a)(1) require each board of education to provide in a timely way special education and related services in accordance with the student’s individualized education program. From the date of the parent meeting in which the District agreed to the Parents’ request for a consultation by a contracted literacy consultant and the generation of the Amendment to the IEP in CT-SEDS was 7 school days. The Parent signed the Amendment to the IEP on November 5, 2024, which was a school holiday. The District contacted the literacy consultant on November 8, 2024 to initiate contact, contract for services, and schedule the observation and team meeting. The District and literacy consultant then went back and forth via email regarding contract issues and requests made by the literacy consultant. The IDEA does not outline a timeline requirement for changes to an IEP through amendment. Furthermore, outside of a three-year reevaluation, the IDEA does not specify a timeline for conducting additional/targeted assessments or consultations. Therefore, it is concluded that the District did not violate 34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17, RCSA § 10-76d-1(a)(1) as they made reasonable efforts to contract and schedule the observation and team meeting with the literacy consultant. No corrective action is required..

Corrective Action(s):

1. Compensatory services are available as an equitable remedy where the District fails to provide an appropriate education. An award of compensatory education should aim to place the Student in the same position the Student would have occupied if the District had not violated the IDEA. *The District must create and provide a compensatory education plan for the Student in the area of Reading based on the delayed start of implementation of specific goals and the misrepresented progress monitoring data which would have been used to guide the Student’s specially designed instruction from January 2024 through June 2024. The Student is to receive a total of 41 hours of Reading Instruction. A copy of this plan must be provided to this investigator no later than April 4, 2025. The District must provide this office with monthly updates on the delivery of services until the compensatory education hours are delivered in full beginning on May 1, 2025. All services under the compensatory education plan must be delivered on or before December 19, 2025.
2. The District must convene a PPT meeting prior to April 11, 2025, to review the Student’s current present levels of performance in the goal areas of Reading and Communication to ensure that annual goals and objectives are realistic and appropriate for fostering expected progress and are reasonably calculated to enable the Student to receive meaningful educational benefit.
3. The District must provide training to the Student’s special education team at Parkway School on:
   1. Requirements of drafting IEPs, including but not limited to writing measurable annual goals and objectives based on present levels of performance that are realistic and appropriate for fostering expected progress for students and that are considered appropriate in light of the students’ circumstances; The District must provide training to the Student’s special education team at Western Middle School on:
   2. Requirements of the Planning and Placement Team to review the student’s IEP periodically, but not less than annually, to determine when the annual goals for the student are being achieved and to revise the IEP, as appropriate, to address any lack of expected progress toward the annual goals, including appropriate staff response to any lack of expected progress toward the annual goals; and The District must provide district-wide guidance to its special education and related services staff on:
   3. Accurate and effective progress monitoring of IEP goals and objectives. An outline of the trainings and guidance and a list of all participants and their titles must be submitted to this office on or before June 30, 2025.