Before The
State Of Wisconsin
DIVISION OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In the Matter of [Student]
v.
Milwaukee Public Schools

 
Case No.: LEA-02-020

DECISION

The Parties to this proceeding are:

[Student], by Attorney Ronald S. Stadler
Stadler & Centofanti
1025 W. Glen Oaks Lane, Suite 108
Mequon, Wisconsin 53092

Milwaukee Public Schools, by

Attorney Roxane L. Crawford
[address]
Procedural Background

On March 28, 2002, the Department of Public Instruction received a request for a due process hearing under Subchapter V, Chapter 115, Wis. Stats., and the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), from [Student] (the "Student"). A due process hearing was originally scheduled to begin on April 29, 2002, but the hearing was rescheduled upon motion of counsel for the Student, who had been retained shortly before the scheduled hearing. The due process hearing was held on June 4 and 5, 2002. The Parties have filed simultaneous post-hearing briefs and briefs in response.

The issue to be decided is whether Milwaukee Public Schools ("MPS") properly determined that the Student is not a "child with a disability" under the special education laws. The Student contends that she is a "child with a disability" by reason of other health impairment ("OHI") as a result of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ("ADHD"), and thus is entitled to special education. For the reasons described below, MPS's determination that the Student is not a "child with a disability" is sustained. (Note: References to specific testimony and exhibits in support of the Findings of Fact and in the Discussion that follows are not intended to exclude other supportive evidence in the record.)

Findings of Fact

Educational History

  1. [Student] (the "Student") was born on xxxxxx, and thus was eighteen years of age when she filed the due process hearing request. The Student resides in the area served by Milwaukee Public Schools ("MPS").

  2. For the academic year 2001-2002, the Student was in the eleventh grade at Pius XI High School ("Pius"). Pius is a parochial school located in Milwaukee County. The Student has attended Pius since the ninth grade (since the 1999-2000 academic year).

  3. Before entering Pius, the Student was enrolled at Brookfield Academy from the second grade through the eighth grade (1992-1999). Brookfield Academy is a private school in the greater Milwaukee area.

  4. Both Pius and Brookfield Academy have reputations for being academically challenging and providing excellent educational opportunities for their students. (T. 22, 229, 386). As private schools, neither is required to comply with state or federal special education laws.

  5. In January 1995 (at age 10, while in fourth grade at Brookfield Academy), the Student was diagnosed to have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ("ADHD").

  6. The Student's mother is an educator and is presently employed by MPS as a school social worker. She has a regular education license and a certification in learning disabilities for grades six to twelve. She has devoted considerable attention and energy in applying her training and experience as an educator in assisting the Student academically throughout the Student's career.

  7. When the Student was diagnosed with ADHD at age 10, her mother decided not to seek a special education evaluation because she was satisfied with the Student's educational program and progress at Brookfield Academy. (T. 386-87).

  8. The Student's educational performance deteriorated somewhat in the sixth grade (1996-1997) at Brookfield Academy. Her mother addressed this in part by increased attention at home and tutoring. (T. 387). Despite this increased attention, the Student's grades through the eighth grade were only marginally passing, except for above average grades in art and music. (Ex. 1, p.16).

  9. The Student has performed considerably better academically at Pius. Her combined grade point average (GPA) through the first semester of the past academic year was 2.859, placing her in the middle third of her class of 367 students. (Ex. 1, p. 106.) She improved her grades in the final semester of last year, finishing with a GPA of 3.001, and moving up in class standing twenty-one places from the preceding semester. (Note: MPS offered the final grades for the academic year 2001-2002 after the due process hearing, representing that they were unavailable at the time of the hearing because the semester had just ended. The final grade report is received as part of the administrative record over the objection of the Student).

  10. The Student did not engage in any significant misbehavior last school year, having committed one minor behavioral infraction. Her behavior has improved over the course of her three years at Pius. (Ex. 1, p.79, Ex. 3).

  11. The Student has thrived in extracurricular theater productions. In one production, she played five separate roles. In another production, Hamlet, her performance included a lengthy soliloquy. The Student rehearses doubly hard to overcome the hindering effect of her ADHD on her ability to remember. She is understandably proud of her considerable accomplishments in theater.

  12. Outside of school, the Student has performed well in two part-time retail sales jobs, for which her "gregarious and enthusiastic personality" (Ex. 1, pp. 16-17) served her well.

  13. All of the Student's substantive classes at Pius have occurred in a traditional regular education environment in the following subject areas: art, English, foreign language, math, music, physical education, science, social studies, and theology. (Ex. 1, p. 106). Because of her ADHD (Ex. 1, p. 33; T.190), Pius has incorporated into her schedule one 24-minute period each day in a "resource room" that is staffed by one Ms. Anne Findlay. Ms. Findlay did not testify but in a letter that is part of the administrative record she has described herself as a "Learning Disabilities Teacher." (Ex. 3). Ms. Findlay has been assisting the Student in the resource room since the Student entered Pius.

  14. In addition to the scheduled daily 24-minute period in the resource room, in a typical week last school year the Student spent additional time in the resource room as discretionary time in her schedule and the teacher's availability would allow. (T. 361).

  15. The Student's subject area teachers last year were aware of her ADHD, but they did not adapt the content, methodology, or delivery of their instruction. (LaPorte). The history and science teachers, however, provided the Student with their lesson notes, and other teachers communicated with the resource room teacher regarding any extra help or accommodations. (Ex. 1, pp. 38-48).

  16. The Student is permitted to take her tests in the resource room, and is also permitted additional time to complete them. The resource room teacher assists her by reading parts of tests to her. She also assists the Student by helping her with "organization of assignments," "note taking," and providing "oral and written directions." (Ex. 1, p. 36; Ex. 3). The nature of the resource room teacher's work with the Student is such that it is largely one-on-one assistance. The Student's subject matter teachers consider the support that the Student receives in the resource room to be very effective. (See, e.g., Ex. 1, p. 42).

  17. The resource room teacher believes the Student needs the assistance that she gets in the resource room to continue to succeed in school. Specifically, the resource room teacher has recommended the following measures for the Student (Ex. 1, p. 36):

    Needs to hear and see information in order to process it. Needs assistance with multi-step assignments….
    Information needs to be presented in visual & oral formats. Extra time on tests, with directions & items read orally. Support with organization. Medication for ADD.

  18. The compensation and coping skills that the Student has learned at Pius have enabled her to succeed there academically and behaviorally. If the supports that the Student has regularly received in the resource room at Pius were withdrawn, her educational performance would likely suffer. (T. 189-90; 275).

    Evaluations for Special Education Eligibility

  19. In November 2000, in the Student's tenth grade year, her mother requested that MPS evaluate the Student to determine whether she was eligible for special education. [Note: School districts are required to evaluate students who are enrolled in private schools by their parents for special education eligibility as part of their "child find" responsibilities. 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.451(a), 300.125(a). Such an evaluation is subject to review in a due process hearing. 34 C.F.R. § 300.457(b).]

  20. MPS conducted the requested evaluation and an IEP team met on February 8, 2001 to determine the Student's eligibility for special education.

  21. Testing done in connection with the evaluation indicated that the Student's academic performance and achievement were commensurate with her intelligence. Members of the IEP team concluded that the ADHD did not adversely affect her academic performance or cause behavioral problems in the school environment. (Schultz). A school psychologist on the team concluded as follows:

    [The Student] would continue to benefit from enrollment in her current educational program. Emotional concerns and ADHD are well documented and certainly interfere with [her] optimal educational performance. However, in the opinion of this examiner, the efforts of the staff at Pius, the support and persistence of her mother, and psychological services in the community have been reasonably successful interventions. [The Student] would continue to benefit from any academic and supportive services available at [Pius XI High School].

    (Ex. 1, p. 14; Schultz).

  22. The IEP team concluded that the Student did not have an "other health impairment" by reason of the ADHD because she "does not demonstrate limited strength, vitality or alertness, including a heightened alertness to environmental stimuli, that results in limited alertness with respect to the educational environment" by reason of the ADHD. (T. 47; Ex. 1, p. 23). The team determined that the Student's ADHD did not adversely affect her educational performance. (T. 47). Notwithstanding these conclusions, the IEP team noted that the Student "requires accommodations like extended test times, distraction free settings, breaks and clarification of directions during testing situations," that she "may require assistance with note taking tasks such as providing her with outlines or copies of notes on presentations," that she "may need to take parts of tests orally," and also that she "may need help and assistance with organizational strategies." (Ex. 1, p. 24).

  23. The Student's mother later requested that MPS conduct additional testing and reconsider whether the Student was eligible for special education. The additional testing was completed, and the IEP team met again on June 5, 2001 to consider again whether the Student was a "child with a disability". The IEP team did not change its original determination that the Student was not a "child with a disability."

  24. In September 2001, the Student's mother registered a complaint with MPS regarding the IEP team's evaluations in February and June. She requested that a new IEP team be constituted and that the Student be evaluated again to determine whether she was entitled to special education. (Ex. 1, pp. 87-88).

  25. MPS honored the parent's request and assembled another IEP team, composed of different personnel acting in the capacities of social worker, diagnostic teacher, psychologist, and LEA representative. The parent requested that a particular person serve as the LEA representative, and MPS honored this request. (T. 296).

  26. An entirely new battery of tests, evaluations, assessments, and observations were conducted, including interviews with her teachers at Pius, and direct observation of the Student at Pius. The results were consistent with those completed in connection with the evaluations completed in February and June 2001. The Student was found to be functioning at the average range of intelligence and to be achieving academically at a level commensurate with her intellectual functioning.

  27. The results of the Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist and the Teacher Report Forms (completed by six teachers) did not reveal "clinically significant socio-emotional concerns." (Ex. 1, p. 80). The prevailing view among the teachers was that the Student's behavior in 25 or the 27 areas surveyed was deemed either a "strength" or that she displayed "average" behavior in those areas. The teachers reported the Student to have "weaknesses" in two of the 27 areas: "completing assignments punctually" (4 of 6 teachers identified this to be a "weakness"), and "working independently" (3 of 6 teachers identified this to be a "weakness"). The resource room teacher was one of the six teachers surveyed. She reported the Student to have "weaknesses" in 16 of the 27 areas rated. None of the subject matter teachers identified "weaknesses" in more than 5 of the 27 areas rated.

  28. Contrary to the conclusion reached by the first IEP team in February and June 2001, the December 2001 IEP team concluded that the Student "demonstrates limited strength, vitality or alertness … due to chronic or acute health problems." (Ex. 1, p. 84). Like the first IEP team, however, the December 2001 IEP team determined that her "educational performance is not adversely affected." Id.

  29. Like the first IEP team, the December 2001 IEP team noted that the Student received assistance "from the special education resource room teacher for extended time for testing, a 1:1 testing setting, tests are read to her and for assistance with organization" and that she "has received many interventions that have been successful in assuring she succeeds." (Ex. 1, pp. 84-85).

  30. The December 2001 IEP team concluded that the Student does not "have needs that cannot be met in regular education as structured." (Ex. 1, p. 82). The IEP team characterized the supports that the Student received in the resource room at Pius as "modifications that do not require special education." Id. The team determined that the supports provided in the resource room at Pius were "modifications that can be made in the regular education program" that would "allow the student access to the general curriculum and to meet educational standards that apply to all students," but that these "modifications … do not require special education." Id. Both the parent and the resource room teacher at Pius (also a member of the IEP team) disagreed with the IEP team's conclusions in this regard. Id.

  31. Though the December 2001 IEP team noted that the Student "has difficulty working independently, completing assignments and taking tests in a group setting[,] … difficulty organizing her work[, and] can be impulsive and easily distracted", the IEP team believed that the resource room at Pius "has been an effective, positive intervention" for these problems. (Ex. 1, p. 85). The IEP team recommended that the Student be evaluated for eligibility for a "504 accommodation plan" under the federal Rehabilitation Act. The thinking of a majority of the members of the IEP team was that the services that the Student received in the resource room at Pius could be replicated under a "504 accommodation plan", and that such services did not amount to "special education". (Philipp, LaPorte, Gridley).

  32. The supports that the Student has received at Pius on account of her ADHD could be substantially provided to the Student at MPS under a "504 accommodation plan" even if the Student were not entitled to special education. (Gridley, LaPorte, Schultz, Philipp, Lohman).

    Specific Eligibility Criteria

  33. The Student has chronic ADHD.

  34. The chronic ADHD causes in the Student limited alertness (caused at least in part by heightened alertness to environmental stimuli) with respect to the educational environment.

  35. The resulting limited alertness adversely affects the Student's educational performance.

  36. The Student does not require "special education and related services" to address this adverse impact on her educational performance.

  37. The Student is not a "child with a disability" within the meaning of state and federal special education laws.

Discussion

Is the Student a "child with a disability" for purposes of the state and federal special education laws? If she is, then she is entitled to receive special education.

With respect to review of a particular individualized educational program ("IEP") in a due process hearing, administrative law judges in Wisconsin must assess the reasonableness of the program contained therein. If the educational program in an IEP is reasonable, it will survive administrative review. An administrative law judge may not substitute his or her opinion regarding the propriety of a reasonable IEP for that of school administrators. School District of Wisconsin Dells v. Z.S., 295 F.3d 671, 2002 W.L. 1396524 (7th Cir. 2002)(Posner, J.).

This matter, however, is not a dispute over the propriety of an IEP, but rather concerns whether the Student is entitled to an IEP. The determination of a student's status as a "child with a disability" under the special education laws is a mixed question of law and fact. Muller v. Committee on Special Education, 145 F.3d 95, 102 (2d Cir. 1998). Here, the salient facts are largely undisputed.

The applicable legal standards are as follows. The "term "child with a disability" is defined in 20 U.S.C. § 1401 as follows:

(3) CHILD WITH A DISABILITY
(A) IN GENERAL The term 'child with a disability' means a child
(i) with mental retardation, hearing impairments …, speech or language impairments, visual impairments …, serious emotional disturbance …, orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic brain injury, other health impairments, or specific learning disabilities; and
(ii) who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services.

(Emphasis supplied). See also Wis. Stat. § 115.76(5); 34 C.F.R. § 300.7(a)(1).

The term "other health impairment" ("OHI") is defined in 34 C.F.R. § 300.7 as follows:

(9) Other health impairment means having limited strength, vitality or alertness, including a heightened alertness to environmental stimuli, that results in limited alertness with respect to the educational environment, that-
(i) Is due to chronic or acute health problems such as asthma, attention deficit disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, diabetes, epilepsy, a heart condition, hemophilia, lead poisoning, leukemia, nephritis, rheumatic fever, and sickle cell anemia; and
(ii) Adversely affects a child's educational performance.

(Emphasis supplied). [See also Wis. Admin. Code § PI 11.36(10), which does not expressly include ADHD within the state definition of OHI. However, the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction has advised local educational agencies that, consistent with federal law, children diagnosed with ADHD could be deemed eligible for special education under the OHI rubric. See "Note" to Wis. Admin. Code § PI 11.36.]

The term "special education" is defined in 34 C.F.R. § 300.26, which provides in pertinent part as follows:

(a) General. (1) As used in this part, the term special education means specially designed instruction … to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability …
* * * *
(3) Specially-designed instruction means adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible child under this part, the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction--
(i) To address the unique needs of the child that result from the child's disability; and
(ii) To ensure access of the child to the general curriculum, so that he or she can meet the educational standards within the jurisdiction of the public agency that apply to all children.

See also 20 U.S.C. § 1401(25); Wis. Stat. § 115.76(15).

Wisconsin Admin. Code § PI 11.35 prescribes the standards that IEP teams in Wisconsin must apply in determining eligibility of a child for special education. It provides in part as follows:

(3) As part of an evaluation or reevaluation under s. 115.782, Stats., conducted by the IEP team in determining whether a child is or continues to be a child with a disability, the IEP team shall identify all of the following:
(a) The child's needs that cannot be met through the regular education program as structured at the time the evaluation was conducted.
(b) Modifications, if any, that can be made in the regular education program, such as adaptation of content, methodology or delivery of instruction to meet the child's needs identified under par. (a), that will allow the child to access the general education curriculum and meet the educational standards that apply to all children.
(c) Additions or modifications, if any, that the child needs which are not provided through the general education curriculum, including replacement content, expanded core curriculum or other supports.

Applying these standards, for the Student to be deemed a "child with a disability" because of her ADHD by reason of "other health impairment" ("OHI"), an IEP team would have to find the following:

  1. That the Student has ADHD. 34 C.F.R. § 300.7(9)(i). [OHI definition].

  2. That her ADHD is chronic or acute. 34 C.F.R. § 300.7(9)(i). [OHI definition].

  3. That her ADHD causes limited alertness, which would include heightened alertness to environmental stimuli, with respect to the educational environment. 34 C.F.R. § 300.7(9). [OHI definition].

  4. That the limited alertness adversely affects her educational performance. 34 C.F.R. § 300.7(9)(ii); Wis. Admin. Code § PI 11.36(10). [OHI definition].

  5. That because of the adverse impact on her educational performance, the Student "needs special education and related services." 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3)(a)(2); 34 C.F.R. § 300.7(a)(1); Wis. Stat. § 115.76(5)(b). ["Child with a disability" definition].

The Student was evaluated three times in 2001 for eligibility for special education services, which resulted in a finding each time that the Student was not a "child with a disability." The correctness of the most recent determination, in December 2001, is the subject of this proceeding.

The Parties agree that the first two elements exist - that the Student has chronic ADHD.

The December 2001 IEP team determined that elements 1, 2 and 3 existed. In its post-hearing brief, however, MPS controverts the IEP team's conclusion that the third element exists, contending that the evidence shows that the ADHD does not cause limited alertness in the educational environment. MPS may not now challenge a dispositive finding of own IEP team, whose ultimate decision it nevertheless defends. The findings of the December 2001 IEP team on elements 1, 2 and 3 are conclusive on MPS for purposes of this proceeding.

The IEP team found that the fourth element was not present, concluding that the ADHD did not adversely affect the Student's educational performance because her academic, behavioral and social performance at Pius met or exceeded expectations. This conclusion is at odds with the near universal view that the Student's academic performance at Pius would likely suffer if the measures taken there to address her ADHD were withdrawn. (Philipp; LaPorte). From this, the conclusion that the ADHD "adversely affects [her] educational performance" follows inexorably. See Yankton School District v. Schramm, 93 F.3d. 1369, 1375 (8th Cir. 1996).

MPS relies on decisions that deny eligibility for special education because the ADHD did not "significantly" affect the student's educational performance. Los Alamitos Unified School District, 26 IDELR 1053 (SEA CA 1997)("educational performance not affected in a significant way" by ADHD); Bellflower Unified School District, 33 IDELR 262 (LEA CA 2000)(ADD "did not significantly interfere with his classroom performance"); Brownsville School District, 33 IDELR 81 (LEA PA 1999)(difference between ability and achievement of child with ADD not "sufficiently discrepant" to warrant finding of adverse affect on educational performance). However, the plain language of the federal and state regulations requires only that the ADHD "adversely affect" educational performance. 34 C.F.R. § 300.7(9)(ii); Wis. Admin. Code § PI 11.36(10). There is no regulatory language requiring that the ADHD adversely affect educational performance "significantly," and I decline to read such a limitation into the law.

In any event, even if educational performance must be significantly adversely affected, I would conclude that the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the ADHD does so affect her educational performance. In making its recommendation that the Student be referred for a 504 plan evaluation, the IEP team observed that the resource room at Pius "has been an effective, positive intervention" for the Student's demonstrated difficulty in "working independently, complet[ing] assignments, … taking tests in a group setting[, and] organizing her work." (Ex. 1, p. 85). One MPS staff member on the IEP team testified that if the measures taken at Pius for the Student's ADHD were withdrawn, he "would expect that she would have a decline in grades." (T. 189-190). This witness observed that "we already saw a picture of that at Brookfield Academy, where she had lower grades without those educational supports." (T. 189). A preponderance of the evidence establishes that the ADHD significantly adversely affects the Student's educational performance.

The Student therefore has "other health impairment" because she has chronic ADHD that causes limited alertness with respect to the educational environment that adversely affects her educational performance. 34 C.F.R. § 300.7(9).

Only the fifth element remains to be satisfied for the Student to be deemed a "child with a disability": Whether by reason of the adverse impact on her educational performance she "needs special education." 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3)(A)(ii).

The Student contends that the measures taken at Pius to address her ADHD constitute "special education." MPS recognizes that these measures have benefited her but asserts that they are mere accommodations and interventions and are not "special education." The evidence establishes that the primary components of the measures taken at Pius because of her ADHD are (1) assistance on tests (taking all tests in the resource room, having extra time on the tests, having the tests read to her orally), (2) help with organization of assignments, (3) help with homework, to include explanation of the homework assignment, and (4) note-taking support, such as teachers providing her a copy of their class notes. (Ex. 3; Ex. 1, p. 36; Student testimony).

The dispositive issue then, is whether these measures constitute "special education." This is a question of law. See Yankton School District v. Schramm, 93 F.3d 1369, 1374, n. 4 (8th Cir. 1996).

"Special education" is "specially designed instruction … to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability." 34 C.F.R. § 300.26(a)(1).

"Specially-designed instruction means adapting … the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction [to] address the unique needs of the child that result from the child's disability." 34 C.F.R. § 2300.26(a)(3).

In a 1991 policy memorandum, the United States Department of Education has described accommodations for children with ADD or ADHD that would not constitute special education (i.e., would not necessarily amount to "specially designed instruction … to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability"):

Steps … should be taken to train regular education teachers … to develop their awareness about ADD and its manifestations and the adaptations that can be implemented in regular education programs to address the instructional needs of these children. Examples of adaptations in regular education programs could include the following: Providing a structured learning environment; repeating and simplifying instructions about in-class and homework assignments; supplementing verbal instructions with visual instructions; using behavioral management techniques; adjusting class schedules; modifying test delivery; using tape recorders, computer-aided instruction, and other audiovisual equipment; selecting modified textbooks or workbooks; and tailoring homework assignments.

Joint Policy Memorandum, 18 IDELR 116 (September 18, 1991)(emphasis supplied). When this policy memorandum was issued, federal regulations did not expressly include ADHD under the OHI rubric. The federal regulations were subsequently amended to expressly include ADHD under OHI. The Department of Education's stated intent in doing so was to incorporate the substance of the "longstanding policy memorandum" of September 1991 into the text of the regulations. See DOE "Analysis of Comments and Changes" to proposed regulations at 64 Fed.Reg. 12542-43 (March 12, 1999). The express inclusion of ADHD under the OHI rubric in the current federal regulations was in effect a ratification and incorporation of the substance and effect of DOE's 1991 policy into the current federal regulations.

Except for the parent, the educators who testified were unanimous in their assessment that the measures being taken at Pius to address the Student's ADHD were in the nature of accommodations or modifications to a regular education program that did not require special education. They held this view notwithstanding that some of these measures could be components of a special education program for a child with a disability. Except for the parent, all the educators who testified believe that the measures taken at Pius to address the Student's ADHD may be substantially provided to the Student without an IEP through a regular education program. Their conclusions that providing such measures would not constitute "specially designed instruction" is consistent with the 1991 DOE policy memorandum that was effectively ratified by the federal regulation that must be applied here.

Thus, I find that the measures taken at Pius XI High School to address the Student's ADHD do not constitute "specially designed instruction" and thus do not constitute "special education." Rather, they amount to accommodations to the Student or modifications to a regular education program that do not amount to special education. The Student does not "need special education" to address the adverse impact ADHD has on her educational performance. She thus is not a "child with a disability" under the state or federal special education laws.

Conclusions of Law

  1. The Student has an "other health impairment" by reason of chronic ADHD. 34 C.F.R. § 300.7(9).

  2. The Student does not need special education by reason of the other health impairment. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.7(a)(1); Wis. Stat. § 115.76(5).

  3. The Student is not a "child with a disability" under 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3) or Wis. Stat. § 115.76(5), and thus she is not entitled to special education.

  4. There is no decision or order regarding the Student's eligibility for a Section 504 accommodation plan.

ORDER

The Student's request that she determined to be a "child with a disability" as defined in 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3)(A) and Wis. Stat. § 115.76(5) is denied.

Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin on August 12, 2002.

STATE OF WISCONSIN
DIVISION OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
819 N. 6th Street, Room 92
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203-1685
Telephone: (414) 227-1860
Facsimile: (414) 227-3818
By: ________________________________
William S. Coleman, Jr.
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 Wis. Stat. §115.80(7), or to federal district court pursuant to 20 U.S.C. §1415 and 34 C.F.R. §300.512.