You are here

IDEA Complaint Decision 04-004

On February 16, 2004, the Department of Public Instruction received a complaint under state and federal special education law from XXXXX against the School District of Superior. This is the department's decision regarding that complaint. The issue is whether the district, during the 2003-2004 school year, ensured that an individualized education program (IEP) team, in developing the child's program, properly considered the parents' concerns for enhancing the education of their child regarding staff training, dietary restrictions, hearing aid use, and toileting needs.

During the fall of 2003, the parents expressed their concern to school staff that their son was not being monitored closely enough when using the restroom. They also expressed a concern that their son's restricted diet was not being followed. The parents also told staff that their son was not wearing his hearing aids and they were not being put safely away. The parents requested from school staff that the assistant receive training regarding the dietary restrictions.

The IEP in effect during the fall of 2003 did not specifically address these issues, and they had not been raised prior to this time. School staff worked with the parents to address their concerns. In November, an agreement was sent to the parents regarding bathroom supervision. Training was also provided regarding the student's dietary restrictions. A daily checklist was created to provide specific information to the student's parents regarding daily activities.

On January 27, 2004, the IEP team met for its annual review of the student's IEP, and during this time the team specifically addressed the parents' concerns in the context of the IEP process. The revised IEP provides for bathroom supervision, which is consistently followed by district staff. The revised IEP further provides that the student will eat a restricted diet consisting of food provided by home. Although there is no evidence that district staff has ever given the student food to eat that was not according to the diet, the student is now given only food that is brought from his home. With regard to the use of hearing aids, the revised IEP states that the student "needs the use of hearing aids and their use needs to be monitored." The student has a place to put his hearing aids, and the daily checklist records when the hearing aids are not in use. Finally, the revised IEP states that specific training regarding the student's disability will be offered to staff, and information has been provided to staff regarding the dietary restrictions. School staff have further scheduled a time each week to meet with the parents to discuss the child's progress and address any concerns. Consequently, the department finds ample evidence that district staff considered the parents' concerns in developing the child's IEP.

This concludes our review of this complaint, which we are closing.

//signed CST 4/16/04
Carolyn Stanford Taylor
Assistant State Superintendent
Division for Learning Support: Equity and Advocacy