Complaint Summary
Date Findings Report Sent
January 30, 2026
Case number
26-0288
School District
Weston Public Schools
Person filing the complaint
Parent
Grade Level
Middle
Allegation(s)
The Parent alleged that the Student was not provided speech and language services in accordance with his IEP. The Parent further alleged that the speech and language pathologists working with the Student were not appropriately trained in the PROMPT method in accordance with the Student’s IEP. (34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17(d) and RCSA § 10-76d-1(a)(1))
The Parent alleged that the Student’s behavior interferes with his learning and safety and that the Student’s current IEP is not adequately supporting his behavioral needs. (34 CFR § 300.324(a)(2)(i))
The Parent alleged that the Student’s progress reports on IEP goals and objectives from June 2025 and November 2025 indicated satisfactory progress and/or mastered on objectives for the goal areas of communication, writing, gross motor, fine motor, and activities of daily living despite the current scores reported for the objectives being less than 50% of the identified target score. (34 CFR § 300.320(a)(3))
Conclusion(s)
Issue 1: The District is in violation of 34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17(d) and Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) § 10-76d-1(a)(1) as it relates to the delivery of the Student’s speech and language services. The speech-language pathologist’s leave of absence and subsequent resignation left the District with an unanticipated vacancy. While the position was still technically filled by the SLP on leave, the District contracted with an outside agency to provide speech and language services. Once the position became vacant, the District posted and filled the vacancy. The District tracked the Student’s missed services before and after the SLP’s resignation and calculated a total of forty-one 30-minute speech and language sessions that are owed to the Student since the start of the 2025-2026 school year. The District reported that they will be developing a plan to provide these services in addition to the current services outlined in the Student’s IEP. Corrective action is required.
While the PROMPT method is identified as an example of a methodology for teaching the principles of motor learning within goal 47 and accompanying objectives, the Student’s IEP does not identify PROMPT training or certification as a requirement for the delivery of the Student’s speech and language services. The responsible staff and service implementers identified in the Student’s IEP are speech-language pathologist, occupational therapist, special education teacher, and paraeducator (Fact #4). The speech-language pathologists assigned to the Student were properly credentialed and trained in the PROMPT method. Therefore, it is determined that the District is not in violation of 34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17(d) and Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) § 10-76d-1(a)(1) as it relates to the responsible staff and service implementers for the Student’s speech and language services. No corrective action is required.
Issue 2: During the 2024-2025 school year, the District convened four PPT meetings held on January 27, 2025, March 25, 2025, July 22, 2025, and August 28, 2025. All four IEPs indicated under Special Considerations that the Student exhibited behaviors that impeded learning for self or others. The IEPs also noted that a behavioral intervention plan based on a functional behavior assessment had been developed. At the PPT meeting held on January 27, 2025, the District updated the Student’s safety plan (Fact #25) and recommended conducting an updated FBA (Fact #24). The District updated the Student’s behavioral intervention plan (BIP) on March 20, 2025, July 21, 2025, and November 14, 2025 (2025-2026 school year). At the PPT meeting held on March 25, 2025, the District added 49 minutes one time per day of Behavior support in the general education setting (Fact #28). On July 22, 2025, the District reviewed the FBA and updated BIP as well as a program review from an outside BCBA. The District recommended adding parent training monthly with the BCBA and specified members of the team, 2 hours per month of consultation with the outside BCBA and increased the existing BCBA consultation from 4 hours per month to 8 hours per month (Fact #30). It is determined that the District is not in violation of 34 CFR § 300.324(a)(2)(i) as they have considered the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports and other strategies to address the Student’s behavior. The District has consistently updated the Student’s plan and recommended services to address his behavioral needs. No corrective action is required.
Issue 3: The District provided the Parent with progress reports on IEP goals and objectives dated June 16, 2025, and November 10, 2025, in alignment with grade-level report cards and in accordance with the Student’s IEP. Following a thorough review of the progress reported on the objectives in question, it is determined that the District accurately reported satisfactory progress based on the collected data. The June 16, 2025, progress report was issued six weeks after the implementation of the Student’s IEP. The Student was progressing on the skills within the objectives which resulted in staff reporting that he was making satisfactory progress on the goals and objectives as they were written for mastery at the conclusion of the IEP in March of 2026 (Facts #37 and #38). The District is not in violation of 34 CFR § 300.320(a)(3). No corrective action is required.
Corrective Action(s)
The District must provide this investigator the compensatory education plan for the 20.5 hours of speech and language services on or before February 27, 2026. The District must then provide monthly updates on the delivery of the services at the beginning of each month starting in March 2026. The log must include the date, length of session, and focus of session. Compensatory services must be delivered in full on or before October 31, 2026.
If the Parent feels that such compensatory services would be overly burdensome or stressful to the student, the Parent, in collaboration with the District, through the PPT process, may determine an alternate number of compensatory service hours or identify alternative compensatory service strategies, methods or programs to compensate the Student.