Complaint Summary
Date Findings Report Sent:
March 25, 2026
Case Number:
26-0393
Person Filing Complaint:
Parent
School District:
Putnam Public Schools
Grade Level:
Middle School
Allegations:
The Parent alleged that despite their concerns and the Student receiving repeated disciplinary actions, the District failed to revise the IEP to meet all of the Student’s academic, social, emotional, and behavioral needs. (34 CFR § 300.324(a)(1), 34 CFR § 300.324(a)(2)(i), 34 CFR § 300.320(a)(4))
Conclusions:
- Speaking to the District’s attentiveness to the Student’s social, emotional, and behavioral needs since the Student’s enrollment in the District in the fall of 2024, seven PPT meetings have been held, FBAs with consequent BIPs have been completed and revised as the Student’s presentation of behaviors changed from the 2024-2025 school year to the 2025-2026 school year, and the District convened to review targeted assessments to better understand the Student’s functioning within the school environment. The District has also stated that they feel that the Student requires a more restrictive setting as recommended at PPT meetings on November 7, 2025, and January 28, 2026. The District convened multiple PPT meetings and provided opportunities to revise the IEP; however, significant concerns remain. The Student’s fluctuating grade performance and lack of progress on goals and objectives from January 2025 through October 2025, as indicated in fact #13, coupled with 26 out of 41 objectives (63%) not being introduced within the first three months of an IEP’s implementation as indicated in fact #14, calls into question the appropriateness of the IEP. While it is understood that some goals will be scaffolded, that only applies to 5 out of the 26 objectives not introduced. Baseline data is missing for most objectives, and the evaluation criteria, methods of measurement, and target scores may be unclear or improperly calculated. For example, one objective lists “3 out of 4 opportunities” and is then converted to 80% rather than the correct 75%, and an objective that asked for mastery in 4 out of 5 opportunities instead used the score of 9/10 on one assessment and reported progress as 9 out of 10 trials. Additionally, several objectives continue to be marked as “Satisfactory” even after mastery criteria has been reached, while others are marked “Limited/Minimal” when criteria has been reached but the Student did not perform it independently, despite independence not being required by the written objective. In some cases, objective targets were increased without corresponding revisions to objectives. In light of the Student’s apparent insufficient progress, the District’s consideration of the Student’s complex academic, developmental, and functional needs was inadequate and incomplete, resulting in noncompliance with 34 CFR § 300.324(a)(1). Corrective actions and recommendations will follow.
Required Correction Action:
- The District must convene a PPT meeting to review and revise the Student’s goals and objectives to ensure that they are reflective of current performance and areas of need, as well as anticipated for mastery in alignment with the Student’s next annual review PPT meeting. This meeting must be held no later than April 30, 2026.
Recommendations:
- The District should ensure that IEP goals and objectives are written with sufficient clarity to allow for accurate and consistent progress monitoring. Furthermore, the District should convene PPT meetings not just to discuss progress, but to revise goals where objectives are mastered or when expected progress is not being made across all areas as required under 34 CFR §§ 300.324(b)(1).