You are here

IDEA Complaint Decision 12-037

On July 9, 2012 (letter dated July 3, 2012), the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) received a complaint under state and federal special education law from XXXXX against the Wisconsin Rapids School District. This is the department’s decision regarding that complaint. The issues are whether the district, during the 2011-12 school year, properly implemented the student’s individualized education program (IEP) regarding the provision of additional time to complete assignments and assistance with organization, and properly revised the student’s IEP.

On April 6, 2011, an IEP team meeting was held to review and revise the student’s IEP, to start on September 2, 2011. The student’s guardian maintains that during the 2011-12 school year, the special education teachers did not consistently implement the IEP provision of additional time to complete assignments and to provide assistance with organizing the assignments. The IEP states that due dates for completion of assignments are extended when the concept, process, or task exceeds the student’s ability to sustain attention sufficient to complete task in the allotted time. This refers to all of the student’s classes. The IEP also states the student will be provided with assistance with organizing assignments including the initiation and completion of assignments.

The special education teachers stated the student’s regular education teachers were informed of and implemented the provision of additional time to complete assignments. The special education teachers ensured the student was provided with assistance to organize assignments. The student had access to the Learning Resource Center. A daily assignment log was developed to track the student’s assignments. The student presented the daily assignment log to the teachers for their review and initials noting a completed assignment. Both of the student’s special education teachers met with the student on a daily basis to assist with the organization and completion of assignments. Each special education teacher checked the daily assignment log for incomplete assignments. The daily log was also sent home to the guardian to initial when the student completed assignments. The teachers emailed worksheets, vocabulary lists, and project outlines to the guardian on a regular basis. Multiple emails were exchanged between the guardian and the school staff.

On January 1, 2012, the special education teacher emailed the guardian to request an agreed upon date and time for an IEP team meeting for the purpose of clarifying the expectations for assignment completion and possibly revising the IEP. On January 2, the guardian stated in an e-mail that he did not want an IEP team meeting before the annual April IEP date. On January 4, the guardian met with the administrative staff, and discussion included confirming an IEP team meeting for January 9; and the guardian agreed to the meeting. On January 5, the student was enrolled in a home school program. Consequently, no IEP team meeting was held and a revision of the IEP was not required.

This concludes our review of this complaint, which we are closing. You may contact Suzan Van Beaver, Special Education Team, at (608) 267-9168 if you have any questions about this decision or for technical assistance.

//signed CST 9/7/2012
Carolyn Stanford Taylor
Assistant State Superintendent
Division for Learning Support