On June 18, 2012, the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) received a complaint under state and federal special education law from XXXXX against the Rosholt School District. This is the departments decision regarding that complaint. The issue is whether the district, during the 2011-12 school year, properly reviewed the students individualized education program (IEP) to address any lack of expected progress toward the annual goals and in the general education program.
Each district must ensure that the IEP team reviews the students IEP periodically, but not less than annually, to determine whether the annual goals for the student are being achieved. The IEP team must also revise the IEP to address any lack of expected progress toward the annual goals and in the general education curriculum.
On February 23, 2011, an IEP team meeting was held for a student with a specific learning disability. The present level of academic and functional performance listed his reading level at an ending second to beginning third grade level and math levels at a beginning fourth grade level. In written language, the student was learning to write paragraphs using complete sentences, rules of capitalization and punctuation and subject-verb agreement. Annual measurable goals included the following: to increase reading skills from an ending second/beginning third grade level to an ending third grade level; to increase math skills from a beginning fourth grade level to an ending fourth/beginning fifth grade level; and to write a 3-4 page report showing organization of material, appropriate capitalization, and correct punctuation. Each goal included six short-term objectives. Special education services included 46 minutes total for each day to cover reading, math, and written language.
During the 2011-12 school year, five meetings were held with the parent to discuss her concerns about her childs progress. In February 2012, in response to the parents concerns as well as district concerns regarding lack of progress, the district suggested an independent educational evaluation (IEE). An IEE was obtained by the parent at district expense. However, the parent chose not to share the results with the district.
On February 20, 2012, the student was reevaluated for special education eligibility. The student was found to continue to be eligible for a specific learning disability and required special education services. Inconsistent progress has been an area of concern for the district as well as the parent. The students IEP was reviewed and revised to continue to improve reading, math, and written language with a change in short-term objectives to best meet the students current needs and address progress. The IEP team changed the service delivery from small group to both individual and small group instruction and included assistive technology as a support for the students reading goal. Even though the student did not progress as much as the district and parent would like, the student did progress throughout the 2011-12 school year. The IEP noted the student made progress on all goals documented on November 11, 2011, January 12, 2012, March 28, 2012, and June 6, 2012. Copies were shared with the parent. The district, during the 2011-12 school year, properly reviewed the students IEP to address any lack of expected progress toward the annual goals and in the general education curriculum.
This concludes our review of this complaint, which we are closing. You may contact Teresa Goodier, Special Education Team, at email@example.com or (608) 267-2947 if you have any questions about this decision or for technical assistance.
//signed CST 8/17/2012
Carolyn Stanford Taylor
Assistant State Superintendent
Division for Learning Support