North Haven 26-0129

Complaint Summary

Date Findings Report Sent:

November 4, 2025

Case Number:

26-0129

Grade Level:

High school

Person filing complaint:

Parent

School District:

North Haven Public Schools

Allegation(s):

  • The Parent alleges that the District has refused the Parent’s request for one to one daily in-person Orton-Gillingham (OG) services for the Student without data to support the refusal resulting in a denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE). 34 CFR 300.324(a) and 34 CFR § 300.101

Conclusion(s):

  • Federal and State regulations require LEAs to provide a FAPE to all children residing in their school district. (34 CFR 300.101 and RCSA § 10-76d-1). FAPE means special education and related services that are provided in conformity with an IEP that meets the requirements identified in the IDEA and state special education laws and regulations. In other words, the IEP is the vehicle for providing a student with FAPE. Special education consists of specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of the student with a disability. 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. Therefore, the PPT should focus on the requirements of the general curriculum when developing a student’s IEP. Substantively, the IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive meaningful educational benefit and to make progress appropriate in light of the Student’s circumstances.
  • Based on a review of the facts, it is concluded that the District continued to provide the Student with FAPE when making the recommendation for 45 minutes of individual reading instruction every other day. The Student made progress with her instruction utilizing the Wilson Reading System as evidenced by the progress monitoring data collected throughout the school year. The District continued to consult with an outside reading consultant who has met with the school staff, attended PPT meetings, and provided feedback and input on IEP goals and objectives. While concerns are noted on the Progress Reports on IEP goals and objectives (addressed below), the Student made satisfactory progress and/or mastered the reading objectives identified for the individual reading instruction. The Student’s report card also indicated more than satisfactory grades. The District convened multiple PPT meetings and made adjustments to IEP objectives based on consultation from the independent reading consultant. While the Student’s individual reading instruction was decreased from 80 minutes every day to 45 minutes every other day, her reading instruction in her co-taught English class increased from 45 minutes 2 times per 4-day cycle to 82 minutes 2 times per 4-day cycle. Therefore, it is determined that the District did not violate 34 CFR 300.324(a) or 34 CFR § 300.101 at the PPT meetings held on May 1, 2025, and September 10, 2025, as the District considered the Student’s strengths, concerns, progress, and evaluation data when proposing an IEP reasonably calculated to meet the Student’s unique needs resulting from her reading disabilities and to enable the Student to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum, thereby offering an IEP that was appropriate in light of the Student’s circumstances. No corrective action is required.
  • Through the course of this investigation, it was noted the Student’s progress reports on IEP goals and objectives dated April 11, 2025, and June 9, 2025, erroneously noted that the Student mastered some of the reading goals for the one-to-one reading instruction. On the progress report dated April 11, 2025, goals 1-3 for reading were noted as mastered. While the Student mastered 17 of the objectives for goals 1-3, the Student was making satisfactory progress on 7 of the objectives for those goals which meant that the Student had not mastered goals 1-3 for her one-on-one reading instruction (Fact #8). On the progress report dated June 9, 2025, goals 1-4 for reading were noted as mastered. While the Student mastered 23 of the objectives for goals 1-4, the Student was making satisfactory progress on 10 of the objectives for those goals which meant that the Student had not mastered goals 1-4 for her one-on-one reading instruction (Fact #19). 
  • In accordance with 34 CFR § 300.320(a)(3), the District was obligated to report on the Student’s progress toward meeting the annual goals and provide the progress reports to the Parents. Corrective action is required.

Corrective Action(s):

  • The District must update the Student’s Progress Reports on IEP Goals and Objectives dated April 11, 2025, and June 9, 2025, to accurately reflect the Student’s progress on her reading goals. This investigator must be notified once the progress reports are corrected for review through CT-SEDS, no later than December 10, 2025.