2012 Complaint Investigation Reports

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 #12.021C

Case Title: "Parents v. AOS #99"

Allegation Categories: Evaluations, IEP Contents

The parent of a student with Multiple Disabilities (Intellectual Disability and Other Health Impairment) filed a complaint alleging that the Student required a more restrictive placement (at a special purpose private school) in order to receive FAPE. The parent asserted that the academic program in which the student was involved was too difficult for her and that the student was subject to bullying. Finding that the student was receiving educational benefit from her educational program, finding no recent instances of the student being bullied, and noting the IDEA’s unambiguous preference for having students educated with their non-disabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate, the Commissioner declined to find a violation with respect to the student’s placement. Violations were found, however, with regard to a need for social behavior goals and provision of services to support those goals, and to the student’s need for additional support in the regular education classroom. The District was directed to convene an IEP Team meeting and develop those elements of the student’s program.

Case #12.030C

Case Title:"Parent & Parent v. CDS First Steps"

Allegation Categories: Evaluations, IEP Contents, IEP Process

The parents of a child receiving services under the category Speech or Language Impairment filed a complaint after the Site determined to discontinue the child’s OT services. That decision was based upon the results of an OT evaluation, and the belief that the child could only receive OT services if the assessment produced scores of at least 1.5 standard deviations below the mean (criteria for eligibility under the disability category Developmental Delay). Violation was found based on the Site’s having confused the criteria for eligibility (here the child was already eligible under a different category) with the criteria for provision of a related service - whether OT services were required to assist the child to benefit from his education. The Site was directed to hold another IEP Team meeting and reconsider the issue of provision of OT services.

Case #12.032

Case Title:"Parents v. RSU #34"

Allegation Categories: Evaluations, IEP Contents, IEP Process

Parents of a student diagnosed with ADHD and receiving services under the category Other Health Impairment alleged that the District had failed to duly consider the conclusions of a private evaluator that the student had dysgraphia, and had failed to evaluate the student in all areas of suspected disability. The investigation revealed that the District had given the evaluation report due consideration, and had modified the student’s writing program in response. The parents’ complaint was determined to be based upon a misapprehension that the private evaluator was diagnosing the student with a specific learning disability, rather than noting the effects of the Student’s ADHD on his writing.

Case #12.038C

Case Title:“Parents v. RSU #4”

Allegation Categories: Eligibility, Evaluations, IEP Process

Parents of a student diagnosed with ADHD who was receiving general education interventions complained that the District had failed to refer the student for special education evaluation, and had failed to make a manifestation determination following the student’s suspension even though the District knew that the student had a disability. Violations were found based upon a seven month period during which the student’s behavior continued to deteriorate despite the general education interventions, which development was known to the special education administrative staff. Additional procedural allegations arose from the District’s use of special education forms and terminology that led the parents to believe that the evaluation process had been initiated. No violations were found regarding those allegations, in part because the District had already discontinued the use of special education forms when implementing general education interventions.

Case #12.043CS

Case Title: "Midcoast Advocacy v. Sanford"

Allegation Categories: IEP/IFSP Process

An interested party complained that a district had a policy of refusing to consider at IEP Team meetings reports of parent-initiated evaluations or written statements of parent concerns unless provided to the district three days or more before the meeting. The district submitted a proposed resolution, which was consistent with a previous OSEP opinion letter and was ultimately accepted, requiring the district to notify parents of this policy.

Case #:12.049C

Case Title: "Parents v. RSU #20"

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

Parents complained that the district had arranged for the provision of behavior analysis services to the student without the IEP Team having determined to do so, that the services provided were not appropriate and that the provider was not qualified. They also complained of the disclosure of the student’s educational records to the provider without their consent. Although the district contended that the services were in the nature of staff training, and therefore were not an appropriate subject for the IEP Team, the Department found that the behavior analyst’s services were targeted to the particular student and were in the nature of consultation rather than training. Accordingly, a violation was found with respect to the failure to have the IEP Team make the determination to provide those services. No further violations were found as the provider was deemed to be duly qualified, to have delivered appropriate services, and to be authorized to review student records as a contracted consultant performing a service for which the district would have otherwise used its employees.

Case # 12.053C

Case Title: "Parents v. Bangor"

Allegation Categories: Discipline; IEP/IFSP Process; Placement

When a student, receiving services under the category OHI (based upon a diagnosis of ADHD), was suspended and then was determined by the IEP Team to require homebound instruction until a risk assessment and psychological evaluation could be completed, the parents complained that: the student had not received appropriate services to address her behavioral needs prior to the incident resulting in suspension; the district had not properly conducted the manifestation determination; the student was not receiving adequate educational services following the suspension; homebound instruction was not the student’s least restrictive appropriate placement; and the district was not complying with regulations concerning abbreviated school day. A violation was found as to the issue of services provided prior to suspension based on the district’s inclusion of behavioral goals in the student’s IEP without providing services necessary to enable the student to make progress towards those goals. A further violation was found with regard to the manifestation determination, which concluded that the student’s behavior was ED-type behavior rather than OHI and was not therefore causally related to the student’s disability. The Department noted that the student, in addition to ADHD, had also been diagnosed with ODD and bi-polar disorder, and that the manifestation determination required that all of the student’s disabilities, not just the primary one, be considered. No violations were found as to the remaining allegations as the district was found to have provided appropriate educational services, to have made a reasonable determination that homebound instruction was required for safety reasons until further evaluations could be conducted, and had complied with the abbreviated day regulations by making the necessary determinations and by holding periodic meetings to review the student’s progress.

Case #12.065C

Case Title: Legal Guardian v. RSU #3

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

A legal guardian complained of failures to maintain assistive technology, and of a failure to include her at an IEP Team meeting. No violations were found as the district made good faith efforts to keep the technology operative, which efforts were sometimes complicated by actions of the legal guardian and the student, and as the legal guardian chose to leave the meeting because some team members were delayed.

Case #: 12.093C

Case Title: "Parent v. RSU #73"

Allegation Categories: FAPE; IEP/IFSP Contents; Placement

A student with heightened sensitivity to temperature and humidity was provided with air conditioning in his primary classrooms, but not in his specials rooms or the lunch room. The parents complained that this resulted in the student becoming ill on numerous days and having to leave school early or being kept home. A further complaint was based on there being days when, due to high temperature and humidity, the student was removed from his specials classes and placed in the special education classroom, allegedly resulting in the student being educated in an unduly restrictive setting. The Department found that the district was appropriately monitoring the student for signs of overheating and was unable to conclude that the student’s reported illnesses were due to exposure to heat and humidity in the classroom. In addition, the number of instances when the student was removed from specials classes due to temperature/humidity concerns was minimal. Accordingly, no violations were found.

Case # 12.094C

Case Title: "Parents v. RSU #73

Allegation Categories: IEP/IFSP Contents; IEP/IFSP Implementation; IEP/IFSP Process; Mediation Agreement; Written Notice

Parents complained of failures to: implement various provisions of the student’s IEP; have all necessary persons present at an annual review IEP Team meeting; develop the IEP in accordance with determinations made at a meeting; and provide a complete and accurate statement of determinations made at a meeting and the reasons for each of them. The parents also claimed that the district failed to comply with a mediation agreement when a Team meeting required to be held to decide whether or not the student required one-on-one support resulted in a decision to spend another month collecting data. Violations were found with regard to: implementation of several provisions of the IEP; making sure staff members were apprised of amendments to the IEP; including all necessary staff members (or securing their written input) at the IEP annual review; not including testing accommodations in the IEP which were agreed to at the IEP Team meeting; and not listing in the Written Notice all those actions proposed or refused at the IEP Team meeting. No violation was found with regard to the mediation agreement as the Team met when required to consider the support issue, and the student continued to receive support during the additional month.

Special Services Information

2012 Complaint Investigation Reports