Complaint Summary

Date Findings Report Sent:

July 03, 2025

Case Number:

25-0588

Grade Level:

Elementary

Person filing complaint:

Parent

School District:

Putnam Public Schools

Allegation(s):

• Failure to ensure that extended school year services are available as necessary to provide FAPE. Extended school year services must be provided only if a child's IEP Team determines, on an individual basis, in accordance with §§ 300.320 through 300.324, that the services are necessary for the provision of FAPE to the child. In implementing the requirements of this section, a public agency may not (i) Limit extended school year services to particular categories of disability; or (ii) Unilaterally limit the type, amount, or duration of those services (34 CFR § 300.106)
• Failure to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to the Student and offer an IEP that is reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress that is more than de minimis and is appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances (34 CFR § 300.101)
• Failure to provide the parents of a child with a disability an opportunity to participate in meetings with respect to (i) The identification, evaluation, and educational placement of the child; and (ii) The provision of FAPE to the child. (2) Each public agency must provide notice consistent with § 300.322(a)(1) and (b)(1) to ensure that parents of children with disabilities have the opportunity to participate in meetings. (3) A meeting does not include informal or unscheduled conversations involving public agency personnel and conversations on issues such as teaching methodology, lesson plans, or coordination of service provision. A meeting also does not include preparatory activities that public agency personnel engage in to develop a proposal or response to a parent proposal that will be discussed at a later meeting (34 CFR § 300.501 (b) (1))

Conclusion(s):

• The District is not in violation of 34 CFR § 300.106. A PPT meeting was held to recommend the Student’s ESY services. The District indicated that the PPT reviewed progress reporting data, overall classroom performance data, and behavioral data from the beginning of the year to present, when recommending ESY services for the Student. The District indicated that the PPT considered the nature and severity of the Student’s disability and interfering behaviors. The District indicated that the behavioral data shows a decrease in all target behaviors. When looking at the Student’s data for the average number of targeted behaviors by day and the number of restraints and seclusions for the Student, an increase was shown in the data between the dates of April 28, 2025, to May 30, 2025. The PPT met again, to revise the Student’s ESY services. The PPT recommended a change in placement to an out-of-district placement. The ESY services increased from 780 minutes a week to 1,800 minutes a week at the out-of-district placement. The District acknowledged the increase of the Student’s target behaviors and the instances of restraint and seclusion for the Student, by re-meeting as a PPT and revising the Student’s ESY services.
• The District is not in violation of 34 CFR § 300.101. Based on the recommendations and revisions made by the PPT, additional efforts made by the District throughout the school year, the Student’s progress on IEP goals and objectives, and the change of the Student’s placement, the District offered an IEP that was reasonably calculated and enabled the Student to make progress that is more than de minimis and appropriate in light of the child’s circumstance.
• The District is not in violation of 34 CFR § 300.501 (b) (1). The Parent and grandmother attended the PPT meeting. The District indicated that the PPT reviewed the Student’s current performance, progress on IEP goals and objectives, and shared proposed recommendations for ESY services. The District indicated that the Parent was asked if they had any questions, concerns, or thoughts when each service member presented on their specified area. It was noted in the Parent Input section on the IEP and the prior written notice from this PPT indicates that the Parent was provided with the opportunity to voice her recommendations for ESY programming. The ESY services recommended by the PPT were increased from PPT meetings in response to the Student’s educational performance. The Parent was provided with the opportunity to participate at the PPT meeting when disagreeing with the recommendations for ESY services, which are noted in the prior written notice and in the Student’s IEP. The District is not required to agree with the Parent in order for the Parent to be an equal participant of the PPT.

Corrective Action(s):

• No corrective action is required.