You are here

IDEA Complaint Decision 09-032

On April 24, 2009, the Department of Public Instruction received a complaint under state and federal special education law from XXXXX against the Muskego-Norway School District. This is the department’s decision regarding that complaint. There are three students in the complaint. The issues, which relate to the 2008-2009 school year, are addressed below.

  • Whether the district implemented Student A’s individualized education program (IEP) regarding assistance with two step commands;

An IEP team meeting was held for Student A on May 21, 2008, with the parent in attendance. During the meeting, the parent expressed concerns the student was having difficulty at home responding to two-step directions, and she was also concerned with the student being able to follow two-step directions in the regular education classroom. The IEP team developed a goal to address following two-step directions. The IEP team also included supplementary aids and services in the IEP to provide adult support to assist the student with following directions in the regular classroom. Adult support was provided through two special education teachers, the regular education teacher, and a special education paraprofessional on a regular basis. The district properly implemented Student A’s IEP regarding assistance with two-step commands.

  • Whether the district properly afforded the parent the opportunity to participate in an IEP team meeting for Student A in March and April 2009 and for Student B in March 2009;

In March and April, the district contacted the parent by phone regarding parent participation in determining additional assessments for Student A and Student B. The parent mistakenly believed these were IEP team meetings. The parent sent in a written consent for evaluation.

An IEP team meeting for each of the students was held on May 18, 2009, without the parent present. The district made, and documented three attempts to attend the meetings, which consisted of a telephone conversation with the parent, a voice message, and a mailed written notice. The department concludes the district properly afforded the parent the opportunity to participate in IEP team meetings for both Student A and Student B.

  • Whether the district implemented Student C’s IEP regarding related services.

On March 18, 2009, Student C was referred for a special education evaluation and the student’s IEP had not yet been developed at the time of special education complaint. An IEP was developed for the student on May 18, 2009. Related services were considered, and none were determined to be necessary to benefit from special education. As a result, there were no related services for the district to implement.

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

//signed CST 6/22/09
Carolyn Stanford Taylor
Assistant State Superintendent
Division for Learning Support: Equity and Advocacy