Norwich 26-0549

Complaint Summary

Date Findings Report Sent

June 29, 2026

Case Number

26-0549

School District

Norwich Public Schools (single student)

Person filing complaint

Parent

Grade Level

Elementary School

Allegation(s)

  • Failure to without unnecessary delay, either— (i) File a due process complaint to request a hearing to show that its evaluation is appropriate; or (ii) Ensure that an independent educational evaluation is provided at public expense, unless the agency demonstrates in a hearing pursuant to §§ 300.507 through 300.513 that the evaluation obtained by the parent did not meet agency criteria in response to the parent’s request for an independent educational evaluation (34 CFR § 300.502(2))
  • Failure to take whatever action is necessary to ensure the parent understands the proceedings of the IEP Team meeting, including arranging for an interpreter for parents with deafness or whose native language is other than English (34 CFR § 300.322(e))

Conclusion(s)

  • Although the District did not respond to the parent’s request for the IEE sent to the District, the District was not required to file a due process complaint to request a hearing or ensure that the IEE was provided at public expense. Pursuant to 34 CFR § 300.502(b)(5), a parent has the right to one IEE at public expense for each evaluation that the school district obtains with which he or she has a disagreement. The Parent stated that they disagreed with the District’s evaluation dated October 1, 2024. The District already granted four IEEs in the areas of Assistive Technology, Occupational Therapy, Neuropsychological, and Speech and Language, when the Parent disagreed with the evaluation dated October 1, 2024, in November 2024.
  • It must be mentioned that the CSDE encourages collaborative communication between districts and families, and the District never informed the Parent that she was not entitled to receive an IEE at public expense. Although it is encouraged that the District is transparent in communicating with the Parent, the District is not in violation of 34 CFR § 300.502(2) as the District was not required to respond to the Parent’s IEE request, as the Parent was not entitled to another IEE for this specific evaluation. No further action is required.
  • As evidenced by the review of the Student’s special education file, it was concluded that all documents generated during the timeline of the complaint including IEPs, Prior Written Notices, Notices of PPT Meetings, consent forms, evaluation reports, and progress reports were translated into the Parent’s native language. In addition to this, all five IEPs developed during the timeline of the investigation include documented Parent Input. The District provided receipts confirming that interpretation services were utilized for each PPT meeting that occurred during the timeline of the complaint. The District also indicated that an interpreter was made available to the Parent when reviewing evaluation reports and results. For these reasons, it is concluded the District took appropriate steps to ensure the Parent understands the proceedings of the IEP Team meeting, including arranging for an interpreter for the Parent. Therefore, the District is not in violation of 34 CFR § 300.322(e). No further action is required.

Corrective Action(s)

  • No corrective actions are required.