Issues in 1994 IDEA Complaint Decisions

94-001 Marinette School District: Did the district violate the complainants' son's right to be educated in the least restrictive environment by failing to place him in a regular class with assistance from a full-time aide during the 1993-94 school year?
94-002 Madison Metropolitan School District: Did the district fail to inform the complainant parents, prior to submitting an EEN referral for their son in January 1994, that a referral would be submitted?; Did the district fail to include in the January 10, 1994, notice of reevaluation the content required under s.PI 11.09(1)(d)1-3, Wis. Admin. Code?; Did the district require the complainant parents to consent to all recommended evaluations as a condition of reevaluating the child's speech and language handicap?
94-003 Beloit School District: Did the district suspend the complainant's foster child from school for behaviors related to the child's known areas of disability and fail to hold an IEP meeting at the time or offer an IEP meeting?
94-004 Green Bay Area School District: Did the district fail to complete a reevaluation of the complainant's child within the 90-day time limit?
94-005 Shawano-Gresham School District: Did the district fail to provide physical therapy to its resident children with EEN, consistent with their IEPs, during the current school year?; Did the district exceed the 90-day time line for completing an M team reevaluation of the complainant's older son during the 1992-93 school year?; Did the district fail to have an IEP in effect for the complainant's older son at the beginning of the current school year?; Did the district fail to have a proper IEP in effect for the complainant's daughter and younger son during the summer of 1993?
94-006 Whitnall School District: During the current school year, did the district fail to provide sign language interpreter services to the complainant's son and daughter, as required by their IEPs?
94-007 Madison Metropolitan School District: Did the district fail to implement the elements of the complainant's son's current IEP relating to community outings?
94-008 McFarland School District: Did the district fail to include transition services in the complainant's son's current IEP?
94-009 Milwaukee Public Schools: Did the district fail to initiate the hearing officer selection process and refuse to process the complainant's 3/4/94 request for a due process hearing?
94-010 Waupun School District: Did the district fail to carry out the modifications and adaptations included in the complainant's son's 1/11/94 IEP?; Did the district's director of special education instruct staff to stop making modifications and adaptations included in the complainant's son's 1/11/94 IEP?
94-011 Whitnall School District: Did the district hold IEP meetings on 4/13/94 without the complainant parent?
94-012 Racine Unified School District: Did the district fail to provide the complainant's daughter physical therapy consistent with her current IEP?
94-013 Milwaukee Public Schools: Did the district fail to provide a calculator for the complainant's son's use as required by his October 12, 1993, IEP?
94-014 Racine Unified School District: Did the district improperly change the complainant's son's 1993-94 IEP?
94-015A Janesville School District: Did the district fail to provide the complainant parents with copies of all of their son's pupil records, pursuant to their March 14, 1994, request?; Did the district divulge personally identifiable information from the records of another child to the complainants without the consent of the other child's parent?
94-015B Janesville School District: Did the district provide the complainant's son with inappropriate special education, and as a result the child failed to progress?; Did the district improperly change the amount of special education in the child's grade 3 IEP?
94-016 Bloomington School District: Since March 7, 1994, has the district shortened the complainant's son's school day for administrative convenience?; Has the district failed to provide the complainant's son with an out-of-school work experience, as required by his current IEP?
94-017 Milwaukee Public Schools: Did the school district, from 8/15/93, through 12/3/93, deny the complainant's son an appropriate education by failing to educate him according to his current IEP?
94-018 Wauwatosa School District: Did the school district, from 12/2/93, to 2/11/94, deny the complainant's son an appropriate education by failing to educate him according to his current IEP?
94-019 Department of Health and Social Services: Did DHSS deny the complainant's son an appropriate education from 2/11/94 through 4/18/94 by failing to educate him according to his current IEP?
94-020 Cedarburg School District: Did the district, beginning 2/11/94, suspend the child who is the subject of this complaint for 15 consecutive school days without providing the child needed special education and related services?; Did the district's action in permanently expelling the child from school on 3/1/94 violate state and federal law?; Did the district fail to provide the child with needed special education and related services in the least restrictive environment after the expulsion?
94-021 Weyauwega-Fremont School District: Did the district fail to complete the M-team reevaluation of the complainant's son within the required time limit?
94-022 Madison Metropolitan School District: Did the district fail to include in the current IEP of the child who is the subject of this complaint the extent to which the child would participate in the regular education program?
94-023 - Withdrawn
94-024 Wrightstown School District: Did the district fail to initiate and complete M-team reevaluations of the complainant's son and other resident children with EEN in a timely manner?
94-025 Superior School District: In March 1994, did the district improperly suspend the complainant's son for more than 10 consecutive school days without providing needed special education?
94-026 Cooperative Educational Service Agency: Did the agency fail to provide an opportunity for parents to participate in the development of the project application?; Did the agency use project funds to pay an unlicensed educational consultant?; Did the agency fail to use project funds in accordance with the approved application?
94-027 Superior: Did the district fail to complete a M-team reevaluation of the complainant's son within the 90-day time limit during the 1993-94 school year?; Did the district fail to implement provisions of the complainants' son's 2/7/94 IEP relating to study skills, use of a computer, social skills, and participation in cadet duties?; Did the district fail to make physical education available to the complainants' child during the 1993-94 school year?; Did the district fail to have a person qualified in the child's area of disability participate in the development of the child's 2/4 and 5/5/94 IEPs?
94-028 Milwaukee Public Schools: Did the district fail to inform the complainant parent of her rights when she consented in May 1994 to a M-team evaluation of her son for a suspected EEN?
94-029 Milwaukee Public Schools: Did the district fail during the 1993-94 school year to honor the complainant's request that her son be evaluated by an M-team for a suspected EEN?
94-030 Kettle Moraine School District: Are statements of speech and language services in children's IEPs based upon administrative concerns, rather than on children's needs for the 1994-95 school year?
94-031 Milwaukee Public Schools: Did the district fail to act upon March 18, 1994, requests for hearings on behalf of the children within time frame established in s. PI 11.10, Wis. Admin. Code?; Did the district fail to immediately re-instate the children in their current placements after receiving the requests for hearings?; Did the district fail to provide the parents of the children with timely and proper notice of 3/10/94 meetings to develop IEPs?; Did the district fail to meet the requirements of ss. PI 11.06 and 11.09, Wis. Admin. Code, when the district changed the children's placements?
94-032 Appleton Area School District: Did the district fail to provide the complainant's niece and nephew with transition services starting at age 16?; Did the district fail to invite representatives of the Department of Vocational Rehabilitation and Calumet County to a 5/26/94 meeting to develop an IEP for the complainant's niece?; Did the district fail during the past three years to inform Calumet County of the names of children with EEN who may require services from the county after leaving school?; Did the district improperly graduate the complainant's niece at the end of the 1993-94 school year.
94-033 Milwaukee Public Schools: Did the district fail to refer the complainant's children for evaluation for suspected EEN and fail to inform the complainant parent about her rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)?
94-034 - Withdrawn
94-035 Random Lake School District: Did the district fail to follow proper procedures when the district developed the complainants' son's 1993-94 IEP dated 9/14/93?
94-036 Green Bay Area School District: Did the district fail to evaluate and place in a timely manner children with suspected EEN referred by the county's birth to three program for children with disabilities during the 1993-94 school year?
94-037 Whitnall School District: Did the district fail to develop an IEP for the 1994-95 school year for the complainant's son?; Did the district fail to share the results of an OT evaluation completed during the 1993-94 school year with the complainant?; Did the district fail to consider the consultation summary prepared by Mary Graczyk when making decisions regarding the complainant's son's IEP?
94-038 Kettle Moraine School District: Did the district fail to include in the child's 1994-95 IEP objective criteria, procedures and schedules for determining whether short-term objectives are being achieved; proper statements of speech and language therapy, adaptive art, and physical therapy to be provided to the child; post-school adult living objectives and daily living skills; and assistive technology services and devices to be provided to the child?; Did the district fail to deliver speech and language services according to the provisions of the child's 1993-94 IEP?; Did the district fail to follow proper procedures when the district changed the amount of speech and language services being provided to their child for the 1993-94 school year?
94-039 Milwaukee Public Schools: Did the district change the complainant's grandson's placement without following the required procedures?; Did the district fail to place the child in accordance with s. PI 11.06(1)(c)1?; Did the district fail to evaluate the child for attention deficit disorder?
94-040 - Withdrawn
94-041 Wausau School District: Did the district violate provisions of the complainant's daughter's 4/20/94 IEP by placing her in a cognitive disabilities social skills class and a CD math class by failing to implement IEP provisions in the areas of assistive technology, peer tutors and "circle of friends?"
94-042 Sevastopol School District: Did the district fail to inform the complainants, parents of a child with EEN, about how to initiate a due process hearing when the complainants requested information in the spring of 1992?; Did the district fail to inform the complainant of their right to a due process hearing when they refused to sign IEPs during the 1991-92 school year and in 9/92 and 10/92?; Did the district schedule IEP meetings on 4/20, 5/22, 8/27, and 10/14/92 at times that were not agreed upon by the parents?; Did the district fail to make special education and related services available to the complainant's child between 8/30 and 11/1/93?; Did the district fail to provide the complainant parents a due process hearing in a timely manner after their 8/4/93 request for a hearing?; During the current school year, did the district fail to provide the complainant's child with a full day of school, as required by his IEP?
94-043 Green Bay Area School District: Did the district use unqualified individuals to provide educational interpreter services to children with hearing impairments during the current school year?
94-044 Milwaukee Public Schools: Did the district fail to complete the multidisciplinary (M-team) evaluation process for children with EEN and suspected EEN in a timely manner?; Did the district fail to have groups develop children's placement offers?; When the district developed children's placement offers, did the district fail to document that it considered the requirements relating to placing children in the least restrictive environment?; Did the district exceed the DPI's guidelines for cognitive disabilities and speech and language program unit enrollments?; Did the district assign a special education program aide at Edison School to function as a general security aide for the building?; Did the district conduct meetings to develop IEPs without the required participants?
94-045 Salem Jt. 2 School District: During 1994, did the district fail to include the complainant parent in meetings to develop IEPs for his daughter?
94-046 Green Bay Area School District: Did the district use unqualified individuals to provide educational interpreter services to children with hearing impairments during the current school year?
94-047 Oshkosh Area School District: Did the district fail to provide educational interpreter services to the complainant's son as required by his IEP?
94-048 Riverdale School District: Did the district fail to follow proper procedures when the district expelled their son, a child with EEN, on 10/17/94?; Did the district fail to provide their son with needed special education and related services after his expulsion?; Did the district fail to have an IEP in effect for their son at the beginning of the 1993-94 school year?; Did the district fail to provide the complainant parents with a copy of all of their son's pupil services, pursuant to their 10/94 request?
94-049 Oshkosh Area School District: Did the district use unqualified individuals to provide educational interpreter services to children with hearing impairments?
94-050 Barron Area School District: Did the district fail to provide the complainant parent with written notice prior to an evaluation of her son in 3/94 at Luther Hospital? ABEYANCE
94-051 Janesville School District: From the first week of 9/94, did the district fail to provide the complainants' daughter with special education consistent with provisions of her IEP developed on 3/10/94?; In 9/94, did the district change the provision of a free appropriate public education to the complainants' daughter and her placement without providing the complainant parents with prior written notice?
94-052 Racine Unified School District: Did the district fail to provide the complainant's son with an FM auditory trainer as required by his current IEP?
94-053 - ABEYANCE
94-054 Middleton-Cross Plains Area School District: Did the distict fail to refer the complainant's daughter for evaluation of a suspected EEN prior to the complainaint's request for M-team evaluation in February 1994?; Did the district fail to determine, prior to the child's expulsion during the 1993-94 school year, whether the complainant's daughter was a child with EEN and whether the behavior for which the child was expelled was a manifestation of her disability?; Did the district fail to complete the child's M-team evaluation performed pursuant to the complainant's 2/17/94 request within the prescribed time limit?; Did the district, after the child's expulsion, fail to develop a placement offer reflecting the identified needs of the child's IEP?
94-055 Gillett School District: Did the district fail to invite representatives of agencies likely to provide or pay for transition services to a 6/2/94 meeting to develop the complainant's son's IEP?; Did the district fail to consider needed transition services when it developed the child's current IEP?; Did the district fail to provide the complainant's son special education and related services in the least restrictive environment when the district served the child at an off-campus facility during the 1993-94 school year?
94-056 Wausau School District: Did the district fail to meet the requirement at s. PI 11.04(3)(c), Wis. Admin. Code, relating to parental involvement in the multidisciplinary team (M-team) processes?; Did the district fail to send both of the children's parents notices of 11/8/94 M-team meetings?; Did the district fail to include in 11/1/94 M-team meeting notices sent to the children's parent information that a parent may bring an advocate to the meeting?; Did the district fail to ensure that M-team examined all relevant available data concerning the children, including records concerning previous and current educational performance, social behavior, and the children's abilities to acquire information via different media, such as oral presentations, written documents, and visual displays?; Did the district fail to address recommendations regarding related services in M-team reports resulting from 11/8/94 M-team meetings?; Did the district fail to send both parents notices of 11/8/94 meetings to develop IEPs?; Did the district fail to meet the parental participation requirements at s. PI 11.05(3)(b) & (c), Wis. Admin. Code, relating to the development of 11/8/94 IEPs?; Did the district fail to include in 11/8/94 IEP meeting notices sent to the parent information that a parent may bring other people to the meeting?; Did the district fail to have a board representative with the authority to commit the district's resources participate in 11/8/94 IEP meetings?; Did the district fail to meet the requirements of s. PI 11.06(1)(b), Wis. Admin. Code, relating to the least restrictive environment, when it developed the children's 11/8/94 placement offers?; Did the district determine the children's 11/894 placements on the basis of their disabilities, rather than upon their IEPs?; Did the district fail to have a group whose members were knowledgeable about each child and familiar with existing special education placement options develop the 11/8/94 placement offer for each child?; Did the district fail to have a placement group that included the director or program designee meet to develop the second part of each 11/8/94 placement offer?
94-057 Superior School District: Is the district, during the current school year, providing an abbreviated school day for the complainant's daughter and other children with cognitive disabilities who attend East Junior High School?
94-058 Whitnall School District: Did the district fail in the fall of 1993 to initiate a M-team evaluation to determine the complainant's son's need for occupational therapy?

For questions about this information, contact Patricia M. Williams (608) 267-3720

Last updated on 3/24/2008 10:57:17 AM