Lyme-Old Lyme 27-0078

Complaint Summary

Date Findings Report Sent

September 25, 2026

Case Number

27-0078

School District

Lyme-Old Lyme Public Schools

Person filing complaint

Advocate

Grade Level

High School

Allegation(s)

The Advocate alleges that the District failed to provide a program and transition services aligned with the Student’s individualized needs, preferences, or interests. It is further contended that the District failed to reconvene the Planning and Placement Team (PPT) to address these programmatic concerns, including an exploration of the possible causes of the Student’s declining engagement and lack of expected progress, among them the Student’s report of peer sexual harassment, and that the Student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) was not revised accordingly. (34 CFR §§ 300.43(a), 300.116(a)(1), and 300.324(b)(1)(ii))

The Advocate alleges that the District failed to include the Student in each PPT meeting at which postsecondary goals and transition services were considered and failed to evaluate whether it was appropriate to request permission and invite representatives of participating agencies likely to be responsible for providing or paying for transition services. (34 CFR § 300.321(b)(1))

The Advocate alleges that the Prior Written Notices (PWNs) of May 7, 2026, and June 12, 2026, failed to describe each evaluation procedure, assessment, record, or report used as the basis for the refusal, as well as any other options the PPT considered and the reasons those options were rejected. (34 CFR § 300.503(b)(7) and RCSA § 10-76d-8(a))

The Advocate alleges that the District failed to provide progress reports on the Student’s IEP goals and objectives during the 2025-2026 school year. (34 CFR § 300.320(a)(3)(i))

The Advocate alleges that the District failed to provide Extended School Year (ESY) services during the summer of 2026 as outlined within the Student’s IEP. (34 CFR §§ 300.106(a)(1), 300.323(c)(2), 300.17, and RCSA § 10-76d-1(a)(1)

Conclusion(s)

The Student experienced significant absences (89 days), inconsistent engagement in special education programming, and ongoing concerns related to vocational fit, avoidance behaviors, communication needs, and self‑advocacy skills. The transition planning Parent and/or Student Input was updated by the District one time out of the four PPTs held during the 2025‑2026 school year. Additionally, two out of the four PPTs were scheduled due to Parent request rather than concern for the lack of engagement. While the District conceded that engagement was limited, the social/emotional present levels remained unchanged for two out of the four PPTs, and the goals that were written for mastery by February 2, 2026, went without revision until the PPT on April 30, 2026, and even then, the changes were primarily only to the end dates. No transition assessments or progress reports were completed within the last year to accurately gauge the Student’s progress or areas for growth, and the transfer of rights section incorrectly identified the Student’s age and failed to acknowledge the Parent’s guardianship. Looking at the postsecondary outcome goal statements, the District failed to make any revisions based upon Student preferences and interests at three out of the four PPTs and even after the removal of finding “employment in the area of young child education” on September 18, 2025, the District failed to update the postsecondary outcome goal statements. Additionally, the transition planning present levels of performance were not updated at three out of the four PPTs. Upon review of the transition goals, the postsecondary education or training, as well as the independent living skills goals and objectives that were written for mastery by June 16, 2025, went without revision until the PPT on January 22, 2026. Similarly, the employment goal and objectives were written for mastery by June 16, 2025, but it went without revision until almost one year later at the June 11, 2026 PPT meeting, and then only the end dates were altered. Four PPT meetings were held during the 2025-2026 school year and concerns about peer interactions and program fit were raised, but the District failed to make revisions to the Student’s IEP addressing these programmatic concerns and they failed to develop appropriately ambitious, data-based IEPs to ensure that the programming was aligned with the Student’s needs, preferences, or interests. Therefore, the District is in violation of 34 CFR §§ 300.43(a), 300.116(a)(1), and 300.324(b)(1)(ii). Corrective action will follow.

The District invited the Student to all four PPT meetings held in 2025-2026 as evidenced by the inclusion on all NOMs. The Student did not attend the PPTs on January 22, 2026, and June 11, 2026, and the District was obligated to take other steps to ensure the Student’s preferences and interests were considered when she did not attend. For the PPTs on January 22, 2026, and June 11, 2026, the Parent’s perspective is documented, but the only Student voice is reflected in the addition on January 22, 2026, to preferences and interests to include jobs that have a social component; however, this failed to be reflected in the postsecondary outcome goals statements in the area of employment. Regarding inviting representatives from outside agencies, the Student’s IEP indicates an intellectual disability and the requirement of specially designed instruction to support independent living skills, yet also conflictingly indicates that agency representatives were not appropriate to be invited to assist in transition planning. The District’s position that the PPT meetings were focused on reengagement is at odds with all NOMs and IEPs for 2025-2026 that list one of the reasons for meeting as “transition planning”. The District’s failure to conduct transition assessments additionally complicates their ability to evaluate whether or not it would have been appropriate to seek consent and invite representatives of participating agencies. Therefore, the District is not explicitly in violation of 34 CFR § 300.321(b)(1), but recommendations will follow.

The PWNs dated May 7, 2026, and June 12, 2026, both identified the actions refused, provided reasons for the refusals, cited the dates and information used as a basis for the decisions, and indicated via a checked box that “no other options were considered and rejected”. This is sufficient as the only other option was the continuation of the Student in the District’s program and that was not rejected, in fact it was the chosen path forward. Therefore, the District is not in violation of 34 CFR § 300.503(b)(7) and RCSA § 10‑76d‑8(a) and no corrective action is ordered.

The Student’s IEP required progress reporting consistent with general education grade‑level reporting and prior to the annual review. No progress reports were generated for the Student during the 2025‑2026 school year, in violation of 34 CFR § 300.320(a)(3)(i). Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, but prior to the issuance of the findings letter, the District acknowledged this failure and retroactively generated the June 2026 report in August 2026, and scheduled staff training to be held on September 4, 2026, addressing progress reporting. Due to these proactive steps, limited corrective action will follow.

The Student’s IEP required ESY services delivered three times weekly from July 6 to July 30, 2026. While the District claimed that the one specific vocational setting was understood to be consistent with the IEP’s intent, there is no documentation within the IEP or in PWN that makes this claim clear. Additionally, the Student’s email on June 18, 2026, does not negate the District’s responsibility to provide ESY services, as the Parent ultimately maintains the decision-making authority regarding educational matters. Therefore, the District is in violation of 34 CFR §§ 300.106, 300.17 and 300.323, and RCSA § 10-76d-1(a)(1). Corrective action will follow.

Corrective Action(s)

  • On or before November 15, 2026, the District will complete updated transition assessments for the Student.
  • On or before November 30, 2026, the District will reconvene the PPT to review the data obtained from the transition assessments to revise present levels, goals, and postsecondary outcome statements to accurately reflect the Student’s needs, preferences, and interests. Additionally, the transfer of rights will be appropriately updated.
  • The District will develop and implement a compliance protocol requiring that transition planning components (transfer or rights, parent/student input, present levels, postsecondary outcomes, and goals/objectives) are reviewed and updated at every PPT where transition services are discussed.
  • The District will provide evidence of their September 4, 2026, training on progress reporting (including the agenda, presentation, and list of attendees) on or before November 1, 2026.
  • The District will ensure that progress reports aligned with IEP requirements are completed for the Student in CT-SEDS and provided to the Parent for the 2026–2027 school year.
  • The District must provide the Student with 2,160 minutes of compensatory education to make up for the ESY summer services missed. If the District and the Parent encounter a disagreement about the scheduling of services, the District shall contact this office and the investigator will decide. The Parent is free to decline the offer of compensatory education in whole or in part.
    • On or before November 1, 2026, the District must, in collaboration with the Parent and Student, develop a detailed proposal for the re-engagement of the Student and the provision of the missed service hours and present that plan to the Bureau for review.
    • Following review by Bureau, the District shall make any of the advised adjustments, if needed.
    • Once approved by the Bureau, the District shall immediately begin implementing the plan and tracking the provision of missed service hours.
    • The District shall provide this office with monthly reports documenting the delivery of these services.