The Parties to this proceeding are:

On July 23, 2001, the Department of Public Instruction received a request for a due process hearing, under Subchapter V, Chapter 115, Wis. Stats., and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) from [Father] and [Mother] (the "Parents") on behalf of their son, [Student] (the "Student"). This request was transmitted to the Division of Hearings and Appeals on that same day.

On August 15, 2001, the Hustisford School District ("District") filed a motion for summary judgment. The Parents filed their response on August 24, 2001.

On August 31, 2001 a telephone status conference was convened to address the motion for summary judgment. The matter is hereby dismissed, not upon the grounds asserted by the School District, but because the matter is not ripe for adjudication at this time.

1. The Student is a five-year-old deaf/hard of hearing child.
2. During the 2000/2001 school year, the Student participated in the CESA-6 Elementary Deaf/Hard of Hearing (D/HH) Program at John Hustis Elementary School.
3. On or about June 29, 2001, the District notified the Parents that the CESA-6 Elementary D/HH program would be moving to Lomira and that the Student would be attending classes in Lomira
4. The Parent’s requested a due process hearing asserting that this change could not be made without an IEP meeting.
5. On August 31, 2001, a telephone status conference was convened to entertain the School District’s motion for summary judgment.
6. As of August 31, 2001, the School District and the Parents had set a date for an IEP meeting to address the Parents’ concerns about staff qualifications and the Student’s nut and bee allergies.

In order to show that the movement of the Student with the CESA-6 Elementary D/HH program was a change in "placement" requiring approval of the IEP team, and therefore, an IEP meeting, the parents must show that, "the student’s education program was materially altered, and not an instance which involves only a change in the physical location of the placement." In Re: Student with a Disability, 29 IDELR 926 (1998), citing Letter to Fisher, 21 IDELR 992 (1994). Factors to be considered are, "whether the education program set out in the child’s IEP has been revised; whether the child will be able to be educated with non-disabled children to the same extent; whether the child will have the same opportunities to participate in nonacademic and extracurricular services; and whether the new placement option is the same option on the continuum of alternative placements." Id.

At the August 31, 2001 telephone conference, the Parents did not know and could not state how the Student’s educational program would be substantially changed, primarily because the matter had not yet been discussed with the School District. Because the Parents do not yet know how the Student’s educational program will be changed, if at all, by the move to Lomira, the parents cannot and do not know whether they were unfairly denied an IEP meeting. The School District has since agreed to convene an informational IEP meeting. Therefore, there is no dispute for the Division of Hearings and Appeals to adjudicate at this time.

THEREFORE,

1. The Parent’s request for a due process hearing is hereby DISMISSED, without prejudice.
2. Since a hearing on the merits was never conducted, I am unable to declare a prevailing party in this case.

Dated at Madison, Wisconsin on September 4, 2001.