State Complaint Investigations

The following Complaint Investigation Report summaries are intended to be a reference guide only, and have no legal authority. If you are interested in learning more about any of the issues described in the summaries, please see the full reports provided.

Case # 09.020C

Case Title: Parent v. Franklin County CDS

Allegation Categories: Eligibility; FAPE; IEP/IFSP Implementation; IEP/IFSP Process

Parents alleged that the CDS site failed to find their child eligible despite test scores that appeared to qualify her for services. The Commissioner found the CDS site in violation, agreeing that the test scores qualified the child for services and finding no sufficient explanation why the child was ineligible. No violation was found with regard to an allegation about an inadequate amount of physical therapy being provided, finding that the amount provided was consistent with recommendations from qualified professionals. Neither was a violation found with regard to a further allegation about supervision of an educational technician providing developmental therapy based on a finding that the level of supervision met the regulatory requirements.

Case # 09.023C

Case Title: Parent v. Acton

Allegation Categories: Evaluation; FAPE; IEP/IFSP Implementation; IEP/IFSP Process

A parent alleged that the District failed to review the student’s IEP by the annual review date. The Commissioner found no violation, finding that the IEP team had actually met for two hours before the annual review due date, even though the meeting was then adjourned and resumed a few days beyond the review date. The parent further alleged that the student’s IEP was not being implemented because the student was not being instructed using a particular reading program. The Commissioner found that the IEP did not specify a particular reading program, and that the decision about which instructional technique to employ was up to the school district. Finally, no violation was found with regard to an allegation that the student was making insufficient progress in reading, based on results that demonstrated that there was some progress, and on the school district’s having continued to make adjustments to the student’s program in an effort to improve those results.

Case # 09.031C

Case Title: Parents v. Augusta

Allegation Categories: Eligibility; Evaluations; FAPE

A parent alleged that the school district had not provided a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) to the student in that the student’s program did not adequately address his behavioral needs, thereby allegedly necessitating the removal of the student from public school and enrollment of him in a residential private school program. The Commissioner found no violation, finding that the school district’s program was reasonably calculated to allow the student to benefit from his education and was the least restrictive appropriate educational setting. No violations were found with regard to the parent’s allegations concerning the school district’s decision to dismiss the student from special education because that decision had been made more than one year before the date the parent filed the complaint, and the student had subsequently been readmitted to special education.

Case # 09.036C

Case Title: Adult Student, Interested Party & Interested Party v. South Portland

Allegation Categories: Evaluations; IEP/IFSP Implementation; IEP/IFSP Process; Written Notice

An adult student and two relatives acting as interested parties alleged that the school district had not conducted an adaptive life skills assessment of the student as requested by one of the interested parties at an IEP team meeting. The Commissioner found no violation, as only the interested parties recalled the request being made at the meeting, and the interested parties had not sought to have the Written Notice of the meeting amended to include a reference to such a request. Once the school district became aware that the interested parties wanted that assessment, the district took reasonable steps to have it conducted. The school district was found in violation of its obligation to conduct an IEP review within one year from the date of the most recent IEP when it agreed to extend the review date to accommodate the interested parties’ schedules. The school district was also found in violation of its obligation to provide the adult student with seven days’ advance written notice of the IEP team meeting, even though a staff member told the student orally and gave written notice to one of the interested parties.

Case #09.037C

Case Title: Parents v. SAD #61

Allegation Categories: FAPE; IEP/IFSP Process; IEP/IFSP Implementation; Written Notice

A parent complained that, after she had moved and her child transferred to a new school district, the new district did not provide the same services as did the previous school district. Also, the new district did not develop a new IEP as it said it was adopting the previous district’s IEP. The Commissioner found that the changes that the new district made to the student’s program were reasonable and offered a FAPE, but that the district was in violation when it failed to develop a new IEP after it had substantially modified the program. The parent also complained that, for the first week of school, the district removed the student from his special education classroom and placed him in a regular education class for “community building” activities. The Commissioner found violations for making this change to the student’s program without any notice to the parent and without giving her an opportunity to participate in making the decision.

Case #09.38C

Case Title: Disabilities Rights Center v. SAD #17

Allegation Categories: IEP/IFSP Implementation; IEP/IFSP Process

In a systemic complaint filed by the Disability Rights Center (“DRC”), the DRC complained that the school district had failed to provide occupational therapy (“OT”) services to all those students whose IEPs called for provision of those services during the 2007-2008 school year. The district stipulated to that fact, stating that it had been unable to hire an OT provider until September 2008. The district had already begun providing compensatory services, however, so that no corrective action was required. The DRC also complained about the district’s requesting that parents sign a form at IEP team meetings to indicate whether or not they agreed with the IEP team’s recommendation. The form contained language that implied that services would not be provided unless the parents signed the form. The Commissioner found no evidence that the district in fact refused to provide any services when parents did not sign the form, or that the district coerced parents into signing the form, and therefore found no violation.

Case #09.040C

Case Title: Parents v. SAD #61

Allegation Categories: FAPE; IEP/IFSP Process; IEP/IFSP Implementation; Written Notice

Case #09.045C

Case Title: Parent v. Lewiston

Allegation Categories: FAPE

This student was placed by the parent in a group residence in a district different than the parent’s resident district. The parent complained that the district where the parent resided refused to provide transportation from and to the student’s place of residence. The Commissioner found no violation, finding that the parent’s resident district’s legal obligation to educate the parent’s child is conditioned upon the child living with the parent. When a student does not reside with the parent, the student is considered a resident of the district where the student resides, but only if the superintendent of that district determines it is in the best interests of the student to do so. If that district declines to educate the child, the parent may ask the Commissioner to review the superintendent’s decision.

Case #09.046C

Case Title: Parents v. Portland

Allegation Categories: Evaluations; Transition

A parent complained that the student’s school district had repeatedly delayed conducting a reevaluation of the student until the student became a high school senior, and then refused to do the reevaluation because the student was about to leave special education due to graduation with a regular diploma. The Commissioner found that the district had violated its obligation to conduct a reevaluation within 3 years of the previous evaluation.

Case #09.056C

Case Title: Parent v. SAD #40

Allegation Categories: Evaluations; IEP/IFSP Contents; IEP/IFSP Process; Least Restrictive Environment

This parent’s complaint centered on the determination of the school district to change the student’s placement from a public day treatment program to a private day treatment program. The student’s IEP contained a behavior intervention plan, but the student was nevertheless involved in several assaultive incidents, leading to a suspension followed by the parent’s decision to home school the student. The parent complained that her input to the decision-making process was not being adequately considered, that the school district was not providing instruction to the student designed to meet his unique needs, that the school district had failed to conduct a functional behavior assessment, and that the private placement was not the least restrictive appropriate placement. The Commissioner found no violation with regard to consideration of the parent’s input; the school district acknowledged and duly considered the suggestions and comments of the parent, although ultimately disagreeing with her. Violation was found with regard to the other allegations, however. The school district had last performed a functional behavior assessment four years ago, and even though it was apparent that the student’s behavior intervention plan was no longer being successful, the school district did not conduct a new one. Similarly, the school district continued to use the same behavior management program with the student even as it became clear it was no longer meeting his needs. Ultimately, the Commissioner determined that until the school district availed itself of the available resources, including the functional behavior assessment, to inform the design of a program to meet the student’s unique needs, the determination to place the student in a more restrictive setting violated the law. Corrective action would not be required, however, until the parent reenrolled the student in the school district.

Case #09.065C

Case Title: Parent v. Winthrop

Allegation Categories: Evaluation; IEP/IFSP Contents; IEP/IFSP Process; Transition; Written Notice

When a school district determined to reduce this student’s speech and language services and to change goals to stress social rather than academic language goals, the parents complained that the school district was failing to consider results of the student’s reevaluation, was failing to provide sufficient services and was failing to create appropriate goals. The Commissioner found no violation in regard to those allegations, noting that the student had been receiving substantial services with only minimal progress, that his coming entry into high school warranted emphasis on social language, and that the student would continue to receive instruction on academic language skills in his self-contained classroom. Violations were found, however, with regard to: the issuance of a written notice that was at variance with most of the IEP team’s understanding; and the completion of a transition plan for the student without input from the parents.

Case #09.072C

Case Title:parent v. Augusta

Allegation Categories: IEP/IFSP Implementation

Where a student engaged in a series of assaultive behavior incidents at school, the student’s parent complained that the school district was not properly implementing the student’s IEP with respect to provision of one-on-one aides and with respect to making therapeutic interventions in accordance with the student’s behavior intervention plan. The investigation uncovered no incidents where the student was not provided with the requisite staff support. On the other hand, the investigation uncovered many occasions where the student’s behavior intervention plan was being successfully implemented. With regard to the assaultive incidents, the school staff was found to have made appropriate, if ultimately unsuccessful, efforts to intervene. No violations were found.

Case # 09.081C

Case Title: Legal Guardian v. South Portland

Allegation Categories: Educational Records; Evaluation; IEP/IFSP Process;

A school district requested the consent of a legal guardian for the triennial evaluation of a student. The legal guardian requested two additional evaluations: visual testing; and an interest and aptitude evaluation in connection with the student’s transition plan. The school district declined to order the visual testing, finding that the legal guardian was basing the request on a finding in an older neuro-psychological evaluation that did not appear in a more recent neuro-psychological evaluation, and further taking into account that none of the student’s current teachers raised any issue of concern with regard to the student’s vision. As to the interest and aptitude evaluation, the school district determined to instead request an on-site assessment from a job coach working directly with the student. The Commissioner found no violation with regard to these determinations. A violation was found with respect to the legal guardian’s complaint that she had received a draft copy of an evaluation report to be discussed at an IEP team meeting only one day before the meeting.

Case # 09.086C

Case Title: Parent v. York County CDS

Allegation Categories: Educational Records; IEP/IFSP Contents; IEP/IFSP Implementation

Where a CDS site implemented the child’s IFSP through a provider team with a special education teacher as primary provider with consultation by a speech/language pathologist, physical therapist and occupational therapist, the parents complained that the child was not getting enough speech/language therapy from a speech therapist and that therefore the site was not providing services designed to meet the child’s developmental needs. The Commissioner found no violation in this respect, and the report contains a discussion of the operation of the primary service model. Violation was found, on the other hand, with regard to the parents’ allegation that the child’s IFSP did not contain a statement of measurable results expected to be achieved and the criteria to be used to determine the child’s progress. The parents complained about two further elements of the child’s IFSP as not sufficiently specific: the description of services to be provided as “specialized instruction” and the description of the primary provider as an “early intervention provider.” The former was found not to be a violation on the basis that “special instruction” was a term defined in the regulations; the latter was found to be a violation as the regulations state that the primary service provider will represent “one of a variety of professional disciplines,” and “early intervention provider” is not a state-approved, certified or licensed professional discipline. Another violation was found based upon the site’s failure to deliver requested educational records within 45 days as required by the regulations.

Case # 09.095C

Case Title: parents v. Lewiston

Allegation Categories: Evaluation; IEP/IFSP Implementation

A parent complained that a student failed to receive many of his occupational therapy sessions, some of which occurred after the parent, who questioned the competence of the school district’s therapist, withdrew consent for the student to receive therapy from that therapist. Prior to the complaint being filed, the school district had agreed with the parent to provide additional sessions with an outside therapist to make up for those that had been missed before the parent discontinued therapy. The Commissioner found that the school district was in violation due to the sessions missed before the parent discontinued therapy, but no corrective action was required because the school district had already compensated for those sessions. As to the sessions missed as a result of the parent’s discontinuing therapy, the Commissioner found insufficient evidence that the student had not been benefitting from the therapy sessions and accordingly found no violation associated with those missed sessions.

Case #09.100C

Case Title: Parents v. SAD #72

Allegation Categories: FAPE

Where a student who had been making minimal progress towards his reading goals engaged in an independently-provided program of vision therapy and saw his reading scores improve by three grade levels over six months, the Commissioner found that the school district’s refusal to provide vision therapy as a related service denied FAPE to the student. The categories of related services contained in the regulations were found to be non-exhaustive, and vision therapy was determined to be required in order to assist the student to benefit from his special education.

Special Services Information

State Complaint Investigations

Case # 09.020C