Before The
State Of Wisconsin
DIVISION OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In the Matter of [Student]
v.
Medford Area School District

 
Case No.: LEA-01-045

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER

The Parties to this proceeding are:

[Student], by [Mother]
[Address]

Medford Area School District, by

Attorney David Rohrer
Lathrop & Clark
PO Box 1507
Madison, WI 53701-1507

BACKGROUND

On August 27, 2001, the Department of Public Instruction received a request for a due process hearing under Wis. Stat. Ch. 115 (2000-01) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §1400, et seq. Pre-hearing conferences were held on September 21, 2001, October 9, 2001, November 9, 2001, November 20, 2001 and November 27, 2001. The hearing was conducted on December 12 and 13, 2001 and January 10 and 11, 2002. At the request of both parties, the date for the issuance of the final decision was extended to February 11, 2002. [Student]'s mother alleges that [Student] has been denied a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) as required by IDEA because:
  1. The Student was not placed in the appropriate classes for her disability;
  2. The Student was not given the appropriate tutoring to allow her to succeed in her classes;
  3. The Student was not provided with the appropriate assistive technology; and
  4. The Student was not provided with adequate counseling to allow her to succeed in her classes.
Based upon the entire record and arguments in this case, this is the final decision and order of the undersigned Administrative Law Judge.

FINDINGS OF FACT

  1. [Student] (the Student), date of birth [XXXXXXXX], is 17 years old and is currently enrolled in the Medford Area School District (the District) in the 11th grade. She was identified as a child with a learning disability in the second grade when weaknesses were identified in areas of spelling, reading and written language areas.

  2. The Student continued to receive special education services until the 5th grade when she refused any services. She did not want to appear different from the other students and would not accept any special education services even though a 3-year evaluation continued to show delays in reading, spelling and written language.

  3. The Student, with her mother's consent, continued to refuse any special education services in the 6th and 7th grade. A three-year evaluation was completed in the Student's 8th grade. After the evaluation, an IEP meeting was held. Because the Student had had reasonable success without special education services since the beginning of 5th grade and because she was utilizing books on tape and private tutoring at home, the IEP team determined that the Student no longer required special education services and she was no longer recognized as a child with a disability that required special education services under IDEA. The team recommended a Section 504 accommodation plan (29 U.S.C. Section 794) if the Student would be receptive and the Mother said that she would continue tutoring services at home if she felt it was beneficial to the Student. The Student and the Mother did not request the Section 504 accommodation plan until the 10th grade.

  4. The Student completed the 8th grade with C's and B's in all classes except for a D in math class. Because she was struggling in math class, the District recommended that the Student take a remedial math class in the 9th grade, but the Student and her Mother decided to have the Student take the regular math class for 9th grade, which was Algebra I. The Mother did not want the Student to take a remedial math class because she did not think her daughter would be able to attend college if she took remedial math classes and the Mother and the Student would like the Student to be able to attend college.

  5. The Student began to have more serious problems with her classes in the 9th grade. In her final grades, she received F's in Spanish I, Algebra I and Computer Science. She received a D in English 9 and a C in Science (Resp. Exhibit #34). During the school year, the Mother was sent progress reports which stated that the Student was doing poorly in various classes with notes that stated the Student was not handing in homework, that her homework was late or that her homework was incomplete.

  6. There was a great deal of disagreement about the Student's Algebra I class which the Student failed in both 9th and 10th grade. The Student had the same teacher for this class from the second semester of 9th grade and for the entire school year of the 10th grade. The Algebra I teacher talked with the Mother on several occasions during the Student's 9th grade and believed that the Student could be successful in the class if she completed all of her homework. The Student failed to do all of her homework and did not ask for help from the teacher during class or before or after school. Mid-quarter progress reports were sent to the Mother informing her that the Student was failing Algebra I during the 9th and 10th grades. The Mother requested a tutor for the Student for Algebra I and Spanish from the District's guidance counselor and the guidance counselor recommended that she receive tutoring services in the tutor lab from the tutor lab teacher. These tutoring services were available during, before and after school. The Mother refused the tutor lab and the guidance counselor introduced the Student to two Student tutors, one for Spanish and one for Algebra. For unknown reasons, the Student did not continue with the student tutor for Algebra after the initial introduction by the guidance counselor.

  7. The Student testified about the Algebra I class taken in 9th and 10th grade and her testimony was not credible. The Student testified that she felt that the Algebra I teacher did not like her personally and that she never helped her when she needed help. The Student testified that she asked for help from the teacher regularly and attempted to get help from the teacher before and after school and that the teacher was never available to help her. The Student also testified that in the two years she took Algebra I, she only missed a couple of assignments. It is difficult to believe that the Student did all of her assignments except for a couple of missed assignments and asked for help when the Algebra I teacher testified that she missed a great deal of homework and never asked for help. The Algebra I teacher's testimony is corroborated by other teacher's progress reports and report cards that state that the Student has a problem with missing assignments and that the Student failed to follow up with an assigned student tutor when the tutor was offered to her for help in Algebra I.

  8. The Student continued to have difficulty with her classes in the 10th grade. She re-took Algebra I and again failed the class for the year. She passed all of her other classes except for the first semester of Biology I (Resp. Exhibit #36).

  9. During her 10th grade year, the Student was assessed at the Marshfield Clinic in a private evaluation instigated by the Mother (Resp. Exhibit #35). The report stated that the Student had some language based learning disability and stated that 'there is now a clear history of a potentially comorbid attentional deficit in her history" however, the possibility of attention deficit was not examined. The report recommended a 504 accommodation plan even though the report stated that the Student was "fiercely resistant" to any special services.

  10. The Mother requested a Section 504 accommodation plan in February of 2001 and a meeting was held on February 26, 2001 at the District school to discuss a Section 504 accommodation plan to help Student in Health and Algebra I classes. The 504 accommodation plan called for giving the Student additional time to take tests, allowed the Student to take tests in the tutor lab and offered additional testing supports in the tutor lab such as having tests and instructions read out loud to the Student (Exhibit #39). The tutor lab is available to all students in the school.

    Footnote: Since Section 504 is administered by the USDE/ Office for Civil Rights, the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction has no enforcement authority for issues arising under Section 504, including interpretation of requirements related to Section 504 plans, services provided under Section 504 or due process procedures about Section 504 issues. This information about the Section 504 plan for the Student is included for background purposes only.

  11. There was some confusion the first time that the Student chose to take a test in an alternate location. The Algebra I teacher wanted to talk to the tutor room teacher prior to the Student taking a test in that alternate location and the Student wanted to take the test in the resource room, not the tutor room. The resource room is a closely monitored study hall that is always staffed by a special education teacher and is only available to students in special education. The Mother believed that the Algebra I teacher was refusing to give accommodations to the Student and was concerned that the Section 504 plan was not being kept confidential. Since she felt that Section 504 plan was not being properly implemented, the Mother requested a referral for special education plan for the Student on March 6, 2001. A meeting was held on March 13, 2001 to determine the tests necessary to evaluate the Student.

  12. The evaluation of the Student resulted in a determination by the District that the Student was identified as a child with a disability on April 11, 2001 (Resp. Exhibit #43). She was identified as learning disabled in the area of written language. The test results from the evaluation showed that the Student tested below average in written language and average in reading comprehension with some difficulty in the letter-word identification sub-test. The test results also showed that the Student had average ability in math. This evaluation never identified the Student as having Attention Deficit Disorder, but did state that she would benefit from assistance with organizational skills so that all homework is completed in a timely manner. No behavioral problems were identified in the evaluation. The Algebra I teacher attended this meeting for a short time and left the meeting after a disagreement that was not resolved with the Mother over whether or not the Algebra I tests could be revised and where the Student sat in the classroom. The Algebra I teacher agreed to give accommodations to the Student for taking tests but refused to revise the tests. The teacher recommended that the Student take CORD (applied) Algebra for revised tests.

  13. An IEP meeting was held on April 19, 2001. This IEP provided test modifications of alternate setting, extra time, option to use notes in language-based classes, modified form of test in language-based classes and option to have tests read to her. The IEP provided for homework modifications of use of assistive technology in writing assignments, tasks broken down into smaller components, access to teacher or peer notes in Applied Biology, Health and Foundation of United States History and access to the highlighted Applied Biology text. The IEP did not specify the types of assistive technology that would be employed, but the Student was trained on a Dragon Naturally Speaking computer program, she was given access to a laptop computer and given an Alpha Smart word processor for writing and taking notes. The Student was also placed in the Resource Room in place of her regular study hall for extra help in completing her assignments because the IEP noted that the Student has organizational problems and does not always complete her homework on time. This IEP was agreed to by the Mother on April 27, 2001 (Resp. Exhibit #46). This IEP was intended to apply until the end of the Student's 10th grade. All of the Student's teachers were notified about the IEP.

  14. The IEP team discussed placing the Student in inclusion classrooms, which would have a Special Education teacher in the classroom to aid the Student. The Mother refused this placement because she wanted the Student to be an independent from the special education staff as possible (Resp. Exhibit #46).

  15. The Student participated in the Wisconsin State Assessment Survey in the 10th grade (Resp. Exhibit #85). In comparison to other students nationwide, she scored in the average range for reading, language, science and social studies. She scored in the average to above-average range in math.

  16. During the summer between 10th and 11th grade, the Student took an Algebra I summer school class for a 1/2 credit. She failed to get any credit for the class because she only attended 30 hours of class and was required to attend 56 hours of class as explained to the Mother and Student both orally and in written form (Resp. Exhibit #49). The Student testified that she thought that if she completed the computer portion of the class, she didn't need to put in the required hours because another student didn't put in the required hours. There is no evidence to show that another student received credit for this class without completing the required hours and the Student was given notice that she had to complete the required hours to get the 1/2 credit of Algebra I.

  17. Another IEP meeting was held on August 20, 2001. The mother left the meeting after approximately 15 minutes after a discussion about the Student's ineligibility to be on the tennis team under the Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association and District rules because of her grades in the final semester of her 10th grade. The IEP team continued without the Mother and prepared an IEP that provided test and homework accommodations that were similar to the April 19, 2001 IEP (Resp. Exhibit #69). She also continued to be placed in the Resource Room in place of a regular study hall for support in completing assignments.

  18. The Mother filed this Due Process Hearing request with the Department of Public Instruction on August 27, 2001.
  19. Another IEP meeting was held on October 29, 2001 (Resp. Exhibit #74). This IEP contained test and homework accommodations similar to the April 19, 2001 IEP, except that it specified the assistive technology to be used in language based assignments: Alpha Smart, computer, Dragon Naturally Speaking and Co-Writer computer programs. This IEP was only prepared in draft form and was not agreed to by the Mother.

  20. In her 11th grade, the Student took a different math class. This was CORD Geometry, which is an applied math class that conforms to District standards and is typically for the student who is not interested in college or is a pre-Algebra class. An incident occurred in this class on November 13, 2001. The teacher left computer printouts of all of the grades for the students in the class on a table in the classroom to be picked up by each student. The Student was not in class that day and her grade printout was left on the table until she picked it up the next day. On that day, the Student alleged that another student teased her about having the lowest grade in the class and the Student refused to return to that math class. This was a general education class and there is no evidence that the grade printout disclosed in any way that the Student was receiving special education services and did not deny FAPE to the Student.

  21. The Mother was sent progress reports on November 27, 2001 for the Student's General Science and CORD Geometry (Resp. Exhibit #56). The notices stated that the Student was in danger of failing these classes because assignments were not done on time or incomplete.

  22. Another IEP meeting was attempted on November 26, 2001(Resp. Exhibit #87). This IEP attempted to work out a plan for the Student to successfully complete CORD Geometry because the Student had not earned any math credits and needed to earn 3 math credits in order to graduate. The District offered the services of a special education teacher to tutor the Student and change the class to a different time. The Mother wanted the Student to be placed in a regular Geometry class and the District refused because she needed to complete Algebra I as a prerequisite to Geometry. The Student was missing many homework assignments in CORD Geometry. The IEP agreed as a team that the Student would take CORD Geometry in the resource room since the Student refused to attend the class and her parent supported this decision. The IEP also added the use of the Nova Net computer program to help her successfully complete the class. However, the Mother e-mailed the District a couple of days later and said that she did not want the Student to do Geometry on the Nova Net program because she wanted the Carnegie computer program or private tutoring such as Sylvan Learning. The District investigated using the Carnegie computer tutoring or private tutoring by the Sylvan Learning Center and refused to offer these programs. The District determined that the Carnegie program was a class wide program that would require an overhaul of the Geometry curriculum and the District believed that they had more services to offer the Student before hiring a private tutoring service such as Sylvan.

  23. The District is able to offer classes in math for the Student to enable her to graduate with her class. If she can earn a ½ credit of math for the second half of her 11th grade, complete the required hours of the Algebra I summer class for ½ credit, complete another summer school math class for ½ credit and take a full year of a math class and a half year of another math class in her 12th grade, she would be able to complete the required 3 credits of math to allow her to graduate with her class.

DISCUSSION

In its most general terms, IDEA requires that every state that receives federal educational funds under IDEA make a "free appropriate public education . . .available to all children with learning disabilities" between three and 21 years of age who reside within that state. 20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(1)(A).

A "free appropriate public education" under IDEA is defined as "special education and related services" which (A) have been provided at public expense, under public supervision and direction, and without charge; (B) meet the standards of the State educational agency; (C) include an appropriate preschool, elementary, or secondary school education in the State involved; and(D) are provided in conformity with the individualized education program (IEP) required under section §1414(d) of this title.20 U.S.C. §1401. The United States Supreme Court noted that IDEA does not provide any substantive standard prescribing the level of education to be accorded handicapped children. Board of Educ. Of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. V. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 189 (1982) ("Rowley"). The Court stated that "by passing the Act, Congress sought primarily to make public education available to handicapped children. But in seeking to provide such access to public education, Congress did not impose upon the States any greater substantive educational standard than would be necessary to make such access meaningful." Id. At 192.

In determining whether a state or district has violated IDEA, a court must decide, first, whether the state or district has complied with the procedures set forth in IDEA and second, whether the IEP "developed through the Act's procedure [is] reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits." If the answer to both questions is yes, no IDEA violation will be found: "[I]f these requirements are met . . .the courts can require no more." Id. At 206-07.

Was the District required to provide FAPE prior to identification?

The Mother has argued that the District failed to provide FAPE to the Student when she was failing Algebra I in both 9th and 10th grades. The Mother does not argue that Algebra I was an inappropriate class for the Student. In fact, the District had recommended that the Student take a remedial math class for the 9th grade since she struggled with math in the 8th grade. However, the Mother refused because she wanted the Student to take Algebra I, the regular education math class for the 9th grade. The Mother argues that the reason the Student failed to succeed in Algebra I is that she did not receive the necessary help to be successful in the class under IDEA. However, the Student was not identified as a child with a disability during her entire 9th grade or until April 11 of her 10th grade.

The District was not obligated to provide the Student with a FAPE until she was evaluated and found eligible for special education. Although she had been identified as a child with a disability in elementary school, she had refused any services since the beginning of the 5th grade. She was successful in her classes without special education services and her IEP team found that she no longer needed special education services in the 8th grade. She successfully passed all of her 8th grade classes.

The District properly attempted intervention utilizing assistance programs available within general education when the Student was having difficulty in passing Algebra I and Spanish I in the 9th grade. The District sent progress reports to the Mother to inform her that the Student was in danger of failing the classes, the District informed the Mother and Student that she could receive tutoring services from the tutor lab and the District guidance counselor introduced the Student to tutors for both Spanish and Algebra. She continued to not complete her homework and did not use the tutor that was made available to her.

Moreover, the Student has never been identified with any disability in the area of mathematics. When a special education evaluation was requested by the Mother, the District conducted an assessment of the Student, considered the assessment results and identified her as a special education student because of a learning disability in the area of written language with no disability identified in mathematics. In fact, the 10th grade Wisconsin statewide assessment test showed that the Student has average to above average abilities in mathematics. Therefore, the District was not required to provide FAPE to the Student prior to her identification as a special education student on April 11, 2001.

Were the procedural requirements of IDEA satisfied?

After the Mother referred the Student for an evaluation for special education services, the Student was assessed and found to be a Student with learning disability in the area of written language on April 11, 2001 and an IEP meeting was held on April 19, 2001.

The requirements of the IEP include the following: (1) a statement of the child's present levels of educational performance, including
(a) how the child's disability affects the child's involvement and progress in the general curriculum;
(2) a statement of measurable annual goals, including benchmarks or short-term objectives, related to:
(a) meeting the child's needs that result from the child's disability to enable the child to be involved in and progress in the general curriculum; and
(b) meeting each of the child's other educational needs that result from the child's disability;
(3) a statement of the special education and related services and supplementary aids and services to be provided to the child, or on behalf of the child, and a statement of the program modifications or supports for school personnel that will be provided for the child:
(a) to advance appropriately toward attaining the annual goals;
(b) to be involved and progress in the general curriculum in accordance with present levels of educational performance and to participate in extracurricular and other nonacademic activities; and
(c) to be educated and participate with other children with disabilities and nondisabled children in the above activities;
20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(1).

The April 19, 2001 IEP provided the statements required by IDEA. Her present level of educational performance was in the area of written language and organizational skills. This affected her written assignments and completing assignments on time. The IEP also included measurable annual goals and benchmarks for meeting her needs that resulted from her learning disability. Finally, the IEP included an accommodation plan for test and homework modifications to help her succeed in the regular education classroom.

The April 19, 2001 IEP was only applicable to the end of the school year and another IEP meeting was held on August 20, 2001. Unfortunately, the Mother left the meeting after a disagreement about the Student not being eligible to play on the tennis team. However, the team prepared an IEP that was similar to the April 19, 2001 IEP in the statements of present level of educational performance and the affect of her learning disability on that performance, the measurable annual goals and short-term benchmarks and the accommodation plan for test and homework modifications.

It has been alleged that the IEP is defective in several ways including:

  1. there was no math teacher at the IEP meetings;
  2. that all teachers were not educated in IDEA;
  3. that the present level of educational performance and the goals for the Student were not correct.

Even though there was no math teacher at the IEP meetings, there was a regular education teacher. There is no requirement in IDEA that a particular regular education teacher be present at the IEP and the District did not violate any procedural requirement by failing to have a math teacher present at the meeting.

Nor can I find that any lack of training on the part of the District denied the Student with FAPE. The Student's teachers were notified and informed of the Student's IEP and the evidence showed that they were able to carry out the IEP.

Finally, the Mother has argued that the present level of educational performance and goals were not correctly stated for this Student. The Mother did agree to the April 19, 2001 IEP on April 27, 2001 and now argues that it is wrong, but has not ever specified exactly what is wrong with the goals, benchmarks or present level of educational performance. The evidence has shown that an evaluation was done and that the goals and present level of educational performance in the IEP was based upon the assessments and information contained in the evaluation. Therefore, I find that the District followed the procedural requirements of IDEA in preparing the IEP.

Was the IEP reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit?

The District is not required to maximize a child's potential. The District is required to provide personalized instruction with sufficient support services that is "reasonably calculated" to confer educational benefits to the child. Rowley at 203. This is not a guarantee of success for the child and does not make the IEP inappropriate.

1. Was the Student placed in adequate classes?

The Mother has argued that placing the Student in CORD or Applied classes are not adequate for the Student. She has argued that these classes are for people who will not go to college and will not allow the Student to succeed in high school. However, the District provided evidence that the CORD or Applied classes were in compliance with District and State of Wisconsin standards, the credits from these classes would apply to graduation from high school and these classes were available to general education students, not just special education students. The evidence also showed that the Student was struggling in the regular education classes and it was appropriate of the District to place her in classes where she would have a chance to succeed.

There was a problem in completing the first semester of CORD Geometry in the 11th grade. Because the Student was refusing to remain in the classroom in November of 2001 because of an issue with confidentiality, she completed the semester in the resource room and not in a math class. The District attempted to place the Student in a different math class or provide a computer program (Nova Net) to assist the Student and the Mother refused these offers. So, the Student received the assignments from the CORD Geometry teacher and the resource room special education teacher was available to help with the assignments until the end of the semester. Unfortunately, the Student did not hand in much of the assignments and she failed the semester. The problem in this case was her inability to complete her assignments. The resource room teacher was available to help her and the math teacher was available to help before or after school. The Student did not complete her assignments that she was given and she was not successful in this class. This does not mean the class was inappropriate.

The Mother has also argued that the Student would do better in school if she were allowed to play on the tennis team. The Student would be allowed to participate if she completed her assignments and passed her classes. If she does not pass her classes, the District is required to follow the WIAA rules and not allow her to participate. In any event, this ineligibility to play tennis did not deny FAPE to the Student.

The evidence also showed that the Student has the ability to take regular education math courses. The District would allow her to complete the ½ credit of Algebra I if she completes the necessary hours this summer and she would have the opportunity to complete another summer course of mathematics. If she accomplished this, she would be able to take a regular education math course as well as an Applied math course in her senior year to enable her to complete the required 3 credits of math by the end of her senior year. This Student has the opportunity to be successful in achieving her goals of graduating with her class under the current IEP.

2. Was the Student provided with appropriate tutoring services?

The Mother argues that the Student would succeed in school if she were provided with private tutoring services provided by a private service such as Sylvan Learning Center. The Mother has developed a mistrust of the District and believes that the Student could only benefit from tutoring if the tutor came from outside the District.

However, tutoring services have been offered by the District and not utilized. The District has placed the Student in the Resource Room, which is always staffed by a special education teacher that is available to the Student to help with her organizational and homework problems. She still has access to the tutor lab and the math teachers have testified that they are available before and after school for extra help if it is needed. Therefore, the Student has been provided with appropriate tutoring services for her disability that was calculated to provide an educational benefit and the Student can take advantage of this help.

3. Was the Student provided with appropriate assistive technology?

The April 19, 2001 and the August 20, 2001 IEP's are not specific about the assistive technology that was provided to the Student, but the evidence has shown that she was provided with a laptop computer, instruction on the computer program Dragon Naturally Speaking and given an Alpha Smart word processor for taking notes and writing. This was provided by the Student's special education caseworker and there is no evidence to dispute that this was appropriate and provided to the Student.

The District did fail to specify the assistive technology aid to be provided to the Student in the April 19, 2001 and the August 20, 2001 IEP's. This error on the part of the District was harmless and did not deny FAPE to the Student since she was actually provided with assistive technology. Also, in the draft of the October 29, 2001, the District has specified the types of assistive technology to correct this error.

4. Was the Student provided with adequate counseling?

It is unclear what the Mother is asking for with this issue. The Student has never been identified as having any behavioral or social problems in her evaluation or the private evaluation done by the Marshfield clinic. If the Student wanted counseling services, the school counselor testified that he was available for counseling. He also testified that the Student never requested any counseling services. Therefore, I find no need for the IEP to provide any type of counseling services for the Student.

IDEA did not deprive the District the right to apply their professional judgment. Rather it establishes a "basic floor of opportunity" for every child with a disability. The District is required to provide specialized instruction and related services "sufficient to confer some educational benefit upon the handicapped child," but the Act does not require "the furnishing of every special service necessary to maximize each handicapped child's potential." Rowley, 458 U.S. at 199-201. The District correctly identified the Student as a child with a disability and subsequently provided her with specialized instruction and services. The Student's instruction and the services she received were individually designed to meet her needs and to provide her with an educational benefit. I therefore find that the District has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Student's IEP and placement were appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

  1. The Medford Area School District is the prevailing party.

  2. The Individualized Educational Programs developed by the Medford Area School District for the Student were reasonably calculated to provide the Student with an educational benefit and have provided her a free and appropriate public education under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §1400, et seq. And Wis. Stat. Ch. 115.
ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the due process hearing request be dismissed with prejudice.

Dated at Madison, Wisconsin on February 11, 2002.

STATE OF WISCONSIN
DIVISION OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
5005 University Avenue, Suite 201
Madison, Wisconsin 53705-5400
Telephone: (608) 266-7709
FAX: (608) 264-9885
By:_________________________________________
Diane E. Norman
Administrative Law Judge
NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS

APPEAL TO COURT: Within 45 days after the decision of the administrative law judge has been issued, either party may appeal the decision to the circuit court for the county in which the child resides under §115.80(7), Wis. Stats., or to federal district court pursuant to U.S.C. §1415 and 34 C.F.R. §300.512.

To facilitate preparation of the record, when an appeal is filed with the court please send a copy of the appeal to the Division of Hearings and Appeals, 5005 University Avenue, Suite 201, Madison, WI 53705-5400.