Before The
State Of Wisconsin
DIVISION OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

The parties to this proceeding are:

Mr. Peter Martin
Lathrop & Clark
740 Regent Street, Ste. 400
Madison, WI 53701-1507

[Parents]
[address]

By letter dated December 2, 1997, [Mother and Father] filed a request for a due process hearing with the Department of Public Instruction on behalf of their daughter, [Student]. The hearing in this matter was subsequently held on January 29, 1998. Attorney Peter Martin appeared on behalf of the District. [Parents] appeared pro se. Post hearing briefs were filed on February 20, 1998.

Based on the entire record in this case, this is the final decision and order of the undersigned administrative law judge.

1. [Student] (dob xxxxx) was a seventh grade student in the [Unnamed] School District during the 1996-97 school year.

2. In October of 1996, [Student] was referred for exceptional education. A multidisciplinary team (M-team) was subsequently convened on December 17, 1996. After evaluating [Student], the M-team concluded that she had an "other health impairment" due to her attention deficit disorder and that she therefore qualified for exceptional education.

3. [Parents], [Student]'s parents, were then invited to participate in an Individualized Education Program (IEP) meeting on December 19, 1996.

4. An IEP was developed for [Student] at the December 19, 1996, meeting. According to the IEP, [Student] was to receive support and services from the learning disabilities program in the areas of reading, math, spelling, and work completion skills.

5. A Notice of Intent to Place and Consent for Placement was sent to the [Parents] on December 30, 1996. The [Parents] signed it on January 5, 1997.

6. Another IEP meeting was convened on April 30, 1997. The purpose of the meeting was to review [Student]'s IEP goals and objectives. After reviewing the IEP, none of the goals or objectives were changed.

7. The [Parents] were invited to participate in an IEP meeting on August 21, 1998, but were unable to attend.

8. On August 20, 1997, the [Parents] sent a letter to Beverly McCoun, the director of student services for the District, in which they informed her that they were considering placing [Student] at the Wallbridge Academy for the 1997-98 school year. Wallbridge Academy is a private school. The [Parents] also requested financial reimbursement for the costs associated with sending [Student] to the Wallbridge Academy.

9. By letter dated September 10, 1997, Ms. McCoun denied the [Parents] request for tuition reimbursement at the Wallbridge Academy.

10. [Student] is currently a student at the Wallbridge Academy.

1. The IEP developed by the [Unnamed] School District for [Student] was appropriate and was reasonably calculated to provide her with a free and appropriate public education under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act and Chapter 115, Wis. Stats.

2. The [Unnamed] School District did not deny [Student] a free and appropriate public education pursuant to the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act or Chapter 115, Wis. Stats.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the due process matter of [Student] by her parents, [Mother and Father], is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the [Parents]'s request for tuition reimbursement is hereby denied.

The [Parents] maintain that [Student]'s Individualized Education Plan (IEP) contained vague objectives which she was unable to achieve. As a result, they believe she was deprived of a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) under the Individuals With Disabilities Act (IDEA). Because the [Parents] believed that [Student] was not receiving a FAPE in the [Unnamed] School District, they placed her at the Wallbridge Academy, a private school, for the 1997-98 school year. They now seek tuition reimbursement for [Student]'s placement at the Wallbridge Academy.

To determine whether or not [Student] was denied a free and appropriate public education, one must apply the standard set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982). According to the Court in Rowley, a two-pronged test must be utilized to determine whether a child has received an "appropriate education." The first prong must address whether the school district complied with the procedures set forth in the IDEA. The second prong must address whether the IEP is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive an educational benefit.

Upon receiving a request from the [Parents] to evaluate [Student] for exceptional education, the District convened an M-team. The M-team evaluated [Student] and summarized its findings in a written report. According to the M-team findings, [Student] was a child who had an "other health impairment." She was therefore entitled to receive exceptional education and services from the District. An IEP committee then met to develop an individualized educational plan for [Student]. The plan included both annual goals and short-term objectives. It is undisputed that the District kept the [Parents] apprised of each step in the evaluation process. They were likewise informed of [Student]'s academic status and invited to participate in the development of her IEP. They were later involved in an IEP review and again informed of her progress. I therefore find that the District complied with the necessary procedural requirements contained in the IDEA.

[Student]'s IEP was developed on the basis of the M-team report. According to the M-team report, [Student] had deficiencies in the areas of reading, math, spelling, and work completion skills. As the four annual goals in her IEP illustrate, each of those deficiencies was addressed. Under each annual goal, specific short-term objectives were identified as a means of achieving the individual goals. The IEP was implemented in several different ways. For example, each day during seventh-hour, [Student] went to the EEN classroom to receive instruction in reading and spelling from Kristine Kneller, the learning disabilities teacher. She also went to the EEN classroom every other day during her eighth-hour class. In addition, [Student] received assistance with math from Ms. Kneller and often took math tests in the EEN classroom. An assignment notebook and assignment sheets were also utilized as a means of assisting [Student] to remember and complete her assignments.

Nevertheless, the [Parents] remained concerned about [Student]'s performance. In April of 1997, they therefore requested that her IEP be reviewed. An IEP review was subsequently held on April 30, 1997. At the conclusion of the IEP review, those present agreed that the goals and objectives contained in [Student]'s IEP remained appropriate. However, following that meeting, [Student]'s academic performance remained uneven. For instance, [Student] often had difficulty with completing her assignments. Although Ms. Kneller assisted [Student] in completing as much of her work in school as she could, [Student] often neglected to complete her unfinished homework assignments and turn them in. Her failure to complete those assignments led to her receiving several below average grades for the second semester of the 1996-97 school year.

While an IEP ensures access to an appropriate program, it does not guarantee a student's success. For a student to achieve success, he or she must actively participate in the program. Unfortunately, [Student]'s participation was often inconsistent. Sometimes she completed her work, other times she did not. According to [Student]'s M-team report, she had deficiencies in the areas of math, reading, spelling, and work completion. The annual goals outlined in [Student]'s IEP directly related to those deficiencies, and the short-term objectives contained clear direction for helping [Student] to achieve those goals. Two of [Student]'s teachers, Kristine Kneller and Sara Hellenbrand, testified that they clearly understood those goals and objectives and had been assisting [Student] in achieving them. The [Parents] introduced no contrary evidence. I therefore find that [Student]'s IEP was reasonably calculated to provide her with an educational benefit.

The [Parents] undoubtedly want the finest education for their daughter. However, the law only requires that a school district provide a basic floor of opportunity for its EEN students through a program individually designed to provide them with an educational benefit. The District is not required to maximize [Student]'s potential, but, rather, the District must provide her with an education where she can reasonably be expected to achieve some benefit. I believe that [Student]'s IEP was designed to meet her individual needs and was reasonably calculated to enable her to achieve an educational benefit.

In the Fall of 1997, the [Parents]'s enrolled [Student] at the Wallbridge Academy, where she is currently a student. The [Parents]'s have requested reimbursement for those private school services. Under Florence County School Dist. Four v. Carter 501 U.S. 7, (1993), if the [Parents] can demonstrate that [Student]'s placement violated the IDEA (i.e., her IEP was insufficient) and that the private school placement was "proper" under the IDEA, then they are entitled to reimbursement. The [Parents] failed to demonstrate that [Student]'s IEP was deficient. I therefore decline to address whether [Student]'s placement at the Wallbridge Academy was proper. Because both elements of the Florence test have not been met, reimbursement for [Student]'s private school placement must be denied.

Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 30th day of March, 1998.