Before The
State Of Wisconsin
DIVISION OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER

On July 27, 1999, 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 [mother], mother of [Student]. Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held on August 31, 1999, in Madison, Wisconsin, before Mark J. Kaiser, Administrative Law Judge.

The request for a due process hearing was filed by [Mother], on behalf of her son [Student]. Between the date the request for a due process hearing was filed and the date of the hearing, [Student] turned eighteen. Pursuant to sec. 115.807(2), Stats., all rights under Chapter 115, Subchapter V, Stats., transferred to [Student] on the date of his birthday. [Student] did not appear at the hearing; however, [Mother] stated on the record that [Student] indicated that he wished to pursue the due process hearing request.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. [Student] (First Name), d.o.b. xxxxx, was a resident of the [Unnamed] School District (District). [Student] has been identified as a child with exceptional education needs (EEN) based on an emotional disturbance (ED).
2. [Student] had an individualized education program (IEP) for the 1998-99 school year with placement at LaFollette High School. [Student]'s IEP did not have an extended school year (ESY) component; however, he did enroll in two regular education classes and a work experience program during the summer of 1999.
3. In late June or early July of 1999, in response to a request from [Mother], Jan Duxstad, special education administrator for the District, authorized thirty hours of tutoring for [Student] as an accommodation under sec. 504 of the Americans With Disabilities Act. The tutoring was to help [Student] pass his summer school classes.
4. [Student] was enrolled in the integrated student services (ISS) work experience program. The prerequisites for the ISS work experience program are that the student had an IEP for the previous school year and be credit deficient. His case manager for the ISS work experience program was Dawn Nonn. Ms. Nonn scheduled repeated appointments for [Student] to start the search for summer employment. [Student] failed to show up for the appointment or return telephone messages left by Ms. Nonn.
5. [Student] never found employment and around July 22, 1999, Ms. Nonn informed [Mother] that [Student] was not going to receive credit for the work experience program. Ms. Nonn did offer to give [Student] an incomplete for the summer work experience program and if [Student] found employment prior to the start of the school year, she would give him credit for the work experience program after he worked the required number of hours. Alternatively, Ms. Nonn offered to give [Student] credit for the work experience program if he wrote an essay explaining about why he should receive credit for work experience program.
6. On July 26, 1999, [Mother] filed a request for a due process hearing alleging that the District did not provide sufficient assistance for [Student] in order to enable him to earn credit for the work experience program during the summer, 1999.
7. [Mother] testified that the District did not provide supportive or assistance services to [Student] during the summer session of 1999 which are consistent with his IEP and would have enabled him to receive credit for the summer work experience program. [Student]’s IEP did not have an ESY program so it was not in effect during the summer session. Regardless of the fact that no IEP was in effect during the summer, [Student] was enrolled in a work experience program specifically intended for special education students with a case manager who works primarily with ED students. The District did provide a reasonable level of supportive services for [Student]. The District did provide a free appropriate education to [Student] during the summer, 1999 session.

DISCUSSION

As found above, [Student] did not have an extended school year IEP for the summer session of 1999, so the issue in this matter is not whether [Student]’s IEP was appropriate and reasonably calculated to provide him a free appropriate public education (FAPE). It is unclear whether there is a valid IDEA issue present in this case. Arguably, the issue could be whether the District should have implemented an extended school year IEP for [Student]; however, the undisputed testimony at the hearing was that neither [Mother] nor any other member of [Student]’s multi-disciplinary team requested an extended school year IEP for him. Regardless of the lack of an extended school year IEP, the District did provide tutoring for him for his regular education summer school classes under sec. 504 of the Americans with Disabilities Act. He was also enrolled in a work experience program designed for special education students. The District did provide extra assistance to [Student] to enable him to earn credit for his summer school regular education classes and work experience program.

[Mother] alleges that the District failed to provide adequate support for [Student] in the work experience program. She has primarily two complaints about the support provided [Student]. The first complaint is that his case manager had limited contact with [Student] during the summer. Dawn Nonn testified that she scheduled numerous appointments for [Student] but he never showed up and she also left numerous telephone messages for him that he never returned. [Mother] disputes the number of attempts made by Ms. Nonn to contact [Student]; however, Ms. Nonn’s testimony is that these attempted contacts were primarily directed to [Student]. [Student] did not testify at the hearing. Ms. Nonn’s testimony regarding her attempts to contact [Student] is essentially uncontroverted and is found to be credible.

[Mother]’s other complaint regarding Ms. Nonn’s efforts as [Student]’s case manager is that she did not do all the things for [Student] that his previous case manager did such as pick him up at his house and drive him to work. Without getting into a philosophical discussion related to whether such a level of support would be counter productive to [Student]’s ultimate goal of becoming an adult capable of living independently, there is no evidence in the record that the District ever agreed to provide such a level of support or that this level of support is justified by [Student]’s disability.

Obviously, there are always additional supportive services that the case manager could have been provided for [Student] and one can say, in hindsight, that if more assistance would have been given to him, he would have become employed during the summer and earned the credit for the work experience program. However, there is no evidence that the District failed to provide any of the support or services required by [Student]’s IEP or the ISS work experience program. Based on the record in this matter the District did provide [Student] with a free appropriate public education.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The District has not denied [Student] a free appropriate public education pursuant to Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and Chapter 115, Wis. Stats.
2. The District is the prevailing party in this matter.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the due process hearing request filed by [Mother], on behalf of her son [Student], is DISMISSED.

Dated at Madison, Wisconsin on September 10, 1999.