Complaint Summary
Date Findings Report Sent:
March 19, 2026
Case Number:
26-0400
Grade Level:
Elementary
Person filing complaint:
Parent
School District:
Regional School District #17 (single student)
Allegation(s):
- Issue 1: The Parents alleged that the Student’s placement in site 2a (resource setting) for Mathematics (5 times per week (40 minutes each time), for Writing (5 times per week (30 minutes each time), and for Reading (5 times per week (40 minutes each time) does not meet the requirements of her least restrictive environment (LRE). (34 CFR § 300.114 )
- Issue 2: The Parents alleged that the Student’s IEP included goals, especially the speech and language (communication) goals, that are not objectively measurable. (34 CFR § 300.320(a)(2))
Conclusion(s):
- With regard to Issue 1, the Student is with non-disabled peers 70.58% of her school day. The investigation confirmed that the PPT reviewed the Student’s needs and determined that the Student required specialized instruction in a more restrictive setting for the remainder of her school day. This was also confirmed by a Prior Written Notice, dated October 10, 2025. That PWN indicated that the PPT had considered additional instruction in the general education environment with supplemental aides and services and determined that the level at which that instruction was being offered (70.58%) was appropriate. It further indicated that the reason for rejecting that option was that the student would not receive an appropriate program in the least restrictive environment if instructed in the general education environment for the 29.42% of the school day for which she was not with non-disabled peers. Of note, the Student’s IEP included goals and objectives in social skills and peer interactions, including a lunch bunch with non-disabled peers, designed to increase the Student’s ability to interact with peers and generalize social skills across school settings which served to mitigate the time away from non-disabled peers. Finally, the Student was making appropriate progress on all goals and objectives and standardized testing measures thereby indicating that the program in place for the Student was also appropriate, including the Student’s LRE. It was concluded that the District was not out of compliance with 34 CFR § 300.114. No corrective actions were issued.
- With regard to Issue 2, a review of the Student’s IEP goals and objectives indicated that those goals and objectives are objectively measurable. The Parent took specific exception to speech and language goals and objectives, however, a review of these found that they were appropriate and measurable based on the abilities and interpretive skills of a speech and language pathologist. In other words, a qualified speech and language pathologist could easily understand and measure the goals and objectives as written. The same is true for all other goals and objectives, with the exception of counseling. With regard to counseling, these goals were written in a measurable but more subjective manner, based on the needs of the area being measured. For instance, measuring the Student’s ‘whole body listening’ or determining an ‘expected’ response based on facial expression. This investigator, again, found that these goals and objectives were appropriate and measurable, but required the interpretive skills of a qualified school psychologist. In reviewing all other goals and objectives (i.e., Math, Writing, Reading) included in the Student’s January 21, 2026, IEP this investigator found that all followed the format of SMART goals/objectives, aligned to CT Core Standards, and were appropriately measurable. It was concluded that the District was not out of compliance with 34 CFR § 300.320(a)(2). No corrective actions were issued.
Corrective Action(s):
None