Complaint Summary

Date Findings Report Sent:

November 24, 2025

Case Number:

26-0152

Grade Level:

Elementary

Person filing complaint:

Parent

School District:

Woodbridge Public Schools

Allegation(s):

• 34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17 and RCSA § 10-76d-1(a)(1) failure to provide special education and related services, in a timely way, in accordance with the student’s IEP.
• 34 CFR § 300.106(a)(1) failure to ensure that extended school year services are available as necessary to provide FAPE, consistent with paragraph (a)(2) of this section. (2) Extended school year services must be provided only if a child’s IEP Team determines, on an individual basis, in accordance with §§300.320 through 300.324, that the services are necessary for the provision of FAPE to the child.
• 34 CFR § 300.324(a)(2) failure, when developing the child’s IEP, to take special factors into consideration (i) in the case of a child whose behavior impedes the child’s learning or that of others, consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and other strategies, to address that behavior.
• 34 CFR § 300.324(c)(1) and RCSA § 10-76d-9(a) failure to take the results of an evaluation obtained at private expense into consideration, if it meets agency criteria, in any decision made with respect to the provision of FAPE to the child.
• 34 CFR § 300.501(b)(1) failure to provide the parents of a child with a disability an opportunity to participate in meetings with respect to 34 CFR § 300.501(b)(i) the identification, evaluation, and education placement of the child and 34 CFR § 300.501(b)(ii) the provision of FAPE to the child.

Conclusion(s):

• There was discussion of the Student trialing an accommodation outside of the PPT, but there is no evidence that the PPT recommended including it and subsequently omitted it from the IEP during a PPT meeting. Additionally, records indicate that the District ensured that all staff with an educational interest were provided copies of the Student’s IEP, and all accommodations as listed in the IEP were provided; therefore, the District is not in violation of 34 CFR § 300.320(a)(4), 34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17, and RCSA § 10-76d-1(a)(1).
• A PPT meeting determined that the Student required ESY services, and the District was prepared to provide the services as outlined in the Student’s IEP. Progress data taken during ESY and assessments taken at the start of the 2025-2026 school year do not indicate regression. It was the decision of the Parent to not have the Student attend all ESY sessions. Therefore, the District is not in violation of 34 CFR § 300.106(a)(1) and 34 CFR § 300.17(d).
• The District reported that all services were provided, unless the Student was absent. A review of the Student’s progress reports over the course of the 2024-2025 school year indicate 100% mastery of language communication goals and objectives, 60% mastery of writing goals and objectives, 52% mastery of reading goals and objectives, and 30% mastery of mathematics goals and objectives. Impacting mastery to some degree, was a later revision of a reading goal and accompanying objectives. While the District is not in violation of 34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) and 300.17, RCSA § 10-76d-1(a)(1), IEP goals and objectives should be written for mastery within one year. Should a Student not be making the expected progress, additional PPT meetings should be held to review data and revise goals and objectives, if necessary. Recommendations will follow.
• The District reported that they did not have any social, emotional, or behavioral concerns for the Student. When the Parent sent an email sharing concerns at home, District staff responded immediately and met with the Student the following day to trial various tiered strategies, and a social, emotional, behavioral assessment was commissioned at the following PPT meeting. In response to ongoing Parent concerns, the Student now has small group counseling services in her IEP. Therefore, the District is not in violation of 34 CFR § 300.324(a)(1) and 34 CFR § 300.320(a)(4).
• The District had convened a PPT meeting to review the IEE completed at private expense and the outside evaluator was in attendance. While the results of an IEE must be considered by the District, they do not need to be adopted into a Student’s IEP should the District be able to plan an appropriate program. Therefore, the District is not in violation of 34 CFR § 300.324(c)(1) and RCSA § 10-76d-9(a).

Corrective Action(s):

• No required corrective actions.