Complaint Summary
Date Findings Report Sent
January 8, 2026
Case number
26-0235
School District
Guilford Public Schools
Person filing the complaint
Parent
Grade Level
Elementary
Allegation(s)
The Parent alleged that the District did not provide a copy of the Student’s March 31, 2025, IEP until April 11, 2025, outside of the regulatory 5-day timeline. This portion of the allegation was investigated. (RCSA § 10-76d-13(a)(6)
The Parent alleged that the Student’s initial IEP (October 24, 2024) did not contain appropriate present level of performance information in that the present levels section included only scores from assessments completed as part of a neuropsychological evaluation. (34 CFR § 300.320)
The Parent alleged that the Student’s initial IEP (October 24, 2024) did not contain goals that were sufficiently measurable in that the staff, when questioned, were not able to explain on what basis the “numbers” (i.e., target percentages, target frequencies, and target ratios) in the Student’s goals and objectives were chosen. (34 CFR § 300.320)
The Parent alleged that the District failed to appropriately collect progress monitoring data for the Student’s October 24, 2024, IEP goals and objectives in that the data collected and provided to the Parent was general and not data specific to the data to be gathered as referenced in the Student’s objectives. (34 CFR § 300.320)
The Parent alleged that the District unilaterally limited the amount and duration of ESY services for the Student for the summer of 2025 in that they restricted the ESY proposed services to the standard five-week ESY program for 16 hours per week, or to attend a reduced number of hours per week to address only reading skills for the standard five-week ESY program. The Parent also alleged that she requested and was refused one hour of reading support per week across the entire summer instead. (34 CFR § 300.106)
Conclusion(s)
Facts identified that the District did not provide the Parent with a copy of that IEP within the required timeline. Therefore, it was concluded that the District was not in compliance with RCSA § 10-76d-13(a)(6) and corrective actions were issued.
The PPT considered nine varied standardized assessments (in 38 subtest areas) along with anecdotal, observational, and teacher-provided data to develop the present level statements for the goals and objectives on the Student’s October 24, 2024, IEP. This data is sufficiently varied and comprehensive for developing appropriate present level statements. Therefore, it was concluded that the District was not out of compliance with 34 CFR § 300.320 for this portion of the allegation and no corrective actions were issued.
The Parent’s basis of the allegation fell in two areas. The first related to her claim that the present levels statements on the Student’s October 24, 2024, IEP were not appropriate and, therefore, appropriately ambitious and measurable goals and objectives could not be developed from them. However, it was determined through the investigation that the present levels statements were appropriate, making them a reliable basis for developing the Student’s goals and objectives. The second related to the Parent’s concern that District staff were unable to adequately respond when asked how the targeted percentages, frequencies and ratios were developed for the Student’s goals and objectives. The District’s response to this investigation acceptably clarified on what basis the 80% accuracy target on the October 24, 2024, IEP was chosen. It was concluded that the District was not out of compliance with 34 CFR § 300.320 for this portion of the allegation and no corrective actions were issued.
Based on the Student’s October 24, 2024, IEP monthly progress monitoring data was to be shared with the Student’s Parents beginning in December 2024. It was found that such data was shared for all months with the exception of December 2024. It was concluded that the District was out of compliance with 34 CFR § 300.320 for the portion of this allegation related to December 2024.
The District offered and was ready to provide ESY 2025 services which were declined by the Parent. The District’s refusal, at the June 9, 2025, PPT meeting not to provide ESY services for the full summer did not constitute a unilateral limitation of the duration of services on the part of the District. For this refusal the District provided prior written notice to the Parent. The District had and offered the Student an appropriate program for the 5 weeks of the scheduled ESY program during the summer of 2025. It was concluded that the District was not out of compliance with 34 CFR § 300.106 based on a unilateral limitation of the duration of services. No corrective actions were issued.
Corrective Action(s)
Immediately upon receipt of this report, the District was directed to upload a copy of the Student’s Progress Report on IEP Goals and Objectives, dated January 30, 2025, to the Student’s CT-SEDS education records since it was not available in CT-SEDS at the time of the investigation.
The District shall provide training to appropriate special education personnel regarding the timeline for the provision of an IEP to parents after a PPT meeting.