Cumberland County Schools violated state and federal special education requirements by failing to consistently implement special education accommodations and revise those plans despite ongoing academic struggles for a Gray’s Creek Middle School student, according to a N.C. Department of Public Instruction investigation.
The June 25 findings from the state agency’s Office of Exceptional Children followed a formal state complaint filed April 29 by the father of a sixth grade student at the school.
After a nearly two-month investigation, state officials concluded Cumberland County Schools violated requirements governing both implementation of the student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) and the development, review, and revision of that plan.
An IEP is a legally required plan for a student with a qualifying disability. It outlines the student’s special education services, classroom accommodations, and educational goals.
The findings mark the latest state investigation into Cumberland County Schools’ special education practices. Earlier this year, state investigators found the district failed to consistently implement accommodations for another middle school student, while a federal lawsuit and a state complaint alleged the district delayed special education evaluations for students suspected of having disabilities.
Under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, school districts must provide students with disabilities a free appropriate public education (FAPE). That includes delivering the accommodations, modifications, and specialized instruction outlined in a student’s IEP.
‘My Son Is Emotionally Suffering’
The father of the Gray’s Creek student alleged that Cumberland County Schools repeatedly failed to implement accommodations outlined in his son’s IEP during the 2025-26 school year.
According to the complaint, the sixth grade student had documented disability-related needs affecting reading, writing, math, attention, organization, assignment completion, and social-emotional functioning. His IEP required accommodations including preferential seating, differentiated and chunked assignments, frequent checks for understanding, teacher monitoring, access to teacher notes, and specially designed instruction.
Despite those accommodations, the father alleged his son received missing assignments and zeros, declining grades, and teacher comments related to incomplete work, organization, time management, and work habits.
“This has been an ongoing school-year-long problem,” the father wrote in the complaint. “My son is emotionally suffering and believes he is the failure. He is not. The failure is the school system’s failure to ensure that his IEP is implemented with fidelity.”
The father argued the student’s ongoing academic struggles reflected the very disability-related needs the IEP was intended to accommodate.
“I believe this is not an isolated family issue,” he wrote. “It reflects a broader accountability problem involving Cumberland County Schools’ implementation of special education supports for students with disabilities.”
CityView is not identifying the student or parent by name to protect the student’s privacy.
State Finds District Failed to Consistently Implement IEP
On May 4, NCDPI’s Office of Exceptional Children accepted the complaint for investigation, notifying Cumberland County Schools it would examine whether the district complied with federal and state special education requirements, properly implemented the student’s IEP, and whether district staff appropriately developed, reviewed, and revised that plan as the student’s academic difficulties continued.
As part of the investigation, NCDPI requested extensive documentation from the district, including accommodation logs, service records, teacher acknowledgements, classroom implementation records, progress monitoring data, report cards, parent communications, seating charts, and a written response addressing the allegations.
After reviewing records submitted by both the parent and the school district, investigators concluded the district failed to demonstrate that the student’s accommodations were consistently implemented throughout the school day.
The investigation found the student had valid IEPs in place during the 2025-26 school year and that teachers described providing accommodations in English language arts, math, science, and social studies. Records also showed the student participated in intervention programs, and investigators found evidence that some accommodations had been provided.
However, NCDPI concluded the district could not demonstrate that accommodations were consistently delivered.
“The LEA did not provide sufficient contemporaneous documentation showing the student reliably received the required accommodations across classes,” the state said in its findings.
Investigators found teacher narratives describing classroom accommodations were prepared after the complaint was filed rather than maintained as ongoing implementation records.
“While the evidence suggests some supports were provided, it does not establish consistent implementation of the student’s IEP accommodations and assignment-completion supports,” according to the report.
Based on those findings, NCDPI determined Cumberland County Schools violated federal and state requirements governing implementation of the student’s IEP.
Investigators: IEP Should Have Been Revised
NCDPI also concluded the school district violated federal and state requirements governing the development, review, and revision of the student’s IEP.
According to the report, district staff revised the student’s IEP during an annual review meeting in February. The revised plan added co-teaching services and more specific accommodation language related to assignment completion.
At the same time, investigators noted the revisions reduced the student’s direct special education services in reading, written expression, and math.
The report stated that by the annual review meeting, data already showed the student was accumulating missing assignments, receiving declining grades, and making limited progress toward annual IEP goals. Although the IEP was revised, investigators concluded the student’s continued academic performance demonstrated additional changes were warranted.
Based on those findings, NCDPI determined Cumberland County Schools violated requirements governing both implementation of the student’s IEP and the district’s responsibility to appropriately review and revise that plan.
School District: ‘Leadership Takes Every DPI Finding Seriously’
Melody Chalmers McClain, associate superintendent of student support services, said Cumberland County Schools has already begun taking corrective actions.
“CCS has already begun implementing the corrective actions identified by NDPI,” McClain said in a written statement to CityView. “An IEP Team meeting is being scheduled to address the student-specific corrective actions required by the decision.”
McClain said the district has developed the procedures required under the corrective action plan and received feedback from the NCDPI corrective action coordinator.
“Those procedures will be finalized and presented to Gray’s Creek Middle School staff during the beginning-of-year staff meeting with implementation and ongoing monitoring to ensure compliance,” she said.
Asked about repeated state findings that the school district isn’t following state and federal regulations for special education, McClain said district leaders view each investigation as an opportunity to strengthen services for students with disabilities.
“District leadership takes every NDPI finding seriously and views each as an opportunity to strengthen practices and improve outcomes for students with disabilities,” McClain said. “When findings of noncompliance are identified, the district works collaboratively with NDPI to develop and implement corrective actions, provide targeted professional development, revise procedures where necessary, and monitor implementation to prevent similar issues from recurring.”
McClain also acknowledged that while the district provides written guidance, training and procedures for IEP implementation, consistent execution ultimately depends on practices within individual schools.
“When concerns are identified, the district reviews the circumstances, provides additional coaching and support, clarifies expectations, and strengthens monitoring to ensure established procedures are followed with fidelity,” she said. “The current corrective actions include reinforcing these expectations through updated procedures, staff training, and ongoing oversight to improve consistency across schools.”
The student’s father said his concerns extend beyond his son’s academic performance and center on what he believes was a failure to respond after repeated warning signs.
“It’s the point that he started out with problems. We brought them up. And yet his grades declined and it was as if nothing was dealt with, and they still knew about it,” he said. “And it sets the stage that if this happened in sixth grade at Gray’s Creek, what is to say it hasn’t happened in other grades or schools in the district?”
The father said the case reflects a broader concern about whether schools consistently deliver the supports outlined in students’ IEPs.
“This is not about one assignment or one class. The concern is that the school had a written IEP with supports intended to address specific disability-related needs, yet the same problems continued.”
