August 6, 2003
Bureau of Special Education and Pupil Services
State Department of Education
25 Industrial Park Road
Middletown, CT 06457-1543
Re: Complaint Resolution Request
STUDENT NAME (DOB 00/00/00)
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to initiate a complaint on behalf of STUDENT NAME and his mother, PARENT. STUDENT is a student at NAME OF SCHOOL in CITY.
I. Procedural Violations
Failure to complete and review evaluations within forty-five days of referral, in violation of 10-76d-13; and
Failure to have an individual present at the PPT who could interpret the instructional implications of the evaluation results, in violation of 34 C.F.R. 300.344.
II. Facts Upon Which Complaint is Based
The PPT recommended a neuropsychological evaluation on October 7, 2002. The evaluation was not scheduled in a timely manner. On January 17, 2003, the undersigned sent a letter to NAME requesting that the evaluation be completed by February 7, 2003. (Attached). The results of this evaluation were not reviewed until March 10, 2003, five months after the PPT recommendation. At that time, the PPT learned that the evaluator, NAME, had not received the original evaluation request packet. Because this packet included information important to the assessment, including STUDENT’s prior psychological evaluations and evidence of self-stimulating behaviors, the team had to re-submit the original packet to EVALUATOR and re-convene. At that time, the team agreed to recommend a full battery of reading assessments in accordance with Evaluator’s recommendation that a reading specialist develop specific strategies to improve reading comprehension and visuospatial language concepts.
The PPT did not meet again to review EVALUATOR’s evaluation until May 23, 2003, over seven months after the PPT recommendation. EVALUATOR was not at the meeting and did not provide a supplemental written report. An oral report indicated that EVALUATOR made no changes to his prior evaluation. At this meeting, the reading facilitator indicated that she conducted a placement test on STUDENT but did not conduct an evaluation to design strategies to improve reading comprehension and visuospatial language concepts. She indicated that she did not have appropriate testing materials to complete such an evaluation. Further, the school members of the team questioned the need for such an evaluation, indicating that they disagreed with EVALUATOR’s statements regarding visuospatial language concepts. None of the team members present was qualified to interpret the instructional implications of the evaluation results, as required by 34 C.F.R. § 300.344. The team had no choice but to re-convene the PPT and invite EVALUATOR to explain his findings. The team recommended that the PPT occur as soon as possible.
Since the PPT on May 23, 2003, the undersigned has made repeated requests to the Board of Education for a PPT. (See attached letter.) To date, no PPT has been scheduled. As a result, the deficits in reading comprehension and visuospatial language concepts identified in EVALUATOR’s report, dated February 8, 2003, have not been adequately addressed in the student’s IEP.
1. Requested Remedy
The student requests that the school be required to:
hold an immediate PPT, with EVALUATOR in attendance, to review EVALUATOR’s report and make appropriate recommendations;
complete all evaluations that may be required as a result of EVALUATOR’s findings, prior to the beginning of the 2003-2004 school year;
develop and implement an appropriate IEP that addresses STUDENT’s deficits in reading comprehension and visuospatial language deficits, as identified in EVALUATOR’s report and any subsequent evaluations identified pursuant to paragraph 1 and 2 above, prior to the beginning of the 2003-2004 school year; and
provide a corrective action plan to ensure no further delays in evaluations, review of evaluations, implementation of evaluation recommendations, or development and implementation of the IEP. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you in advance for your assistance.
Attorney for the Child
Cc: NAME OF PRINCIPAL, NAME OF SCHOOL NAME, Staff Developer, Board of Education PARENT