|
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)
ADDRESS
PHONE NUMBER
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.
Sincerely,
ATTORNEY NAME
Attorney for the Child
Cc: NAME OF PRINCIPAL, NAME OF SCHOOL NAME, Staff Developer, Board
of Education PARENT
|
