You are here

IDEA Complaint Decision 13-022

On April 22, 2013, the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) received a complaint under state and federal special education law from XXXXX against XXXXX. This is the department’s decision regarding that complaint. The issues are whether the district, during the 2012-13 school year properly:

  • Developed the student’s behavior intervention plan (BIP);
  • Provided a copy of the student’s individualized education program (IEP) to the parent in a timely manner;
  • Developed the student’s IEP to reflect IEP team determinations made during an IEP team meeting;
  • Made changes to the student’s IEP without a meeting;
  • Provided the student with services implemented by appropriately trained staff; and
  • Developed the student’s extended school year (ESY) services to include nursing.

The IEP team must in the case of a student whose behavior impedes the student’s learning or that of others, consider the use of positive behavioral interventions. During November 2012, the district agreed to conduct a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) which included a psychological evaluation and data collected on student behaviors, the incident antecedents, interventions previously attempted, and positive outcomes and developed a BIP. On January 7, 2013, the student’s IEP team met to share the evaluation results and to review and revise the IEP and BIP. The FBA was comprehensive and was conducted during November and December 2012. The student’s IEP, which was revised on January 7, 2013, included positive behavioral interventions based on the FBA. Some of the interventions included allowing time for transitions and regrouping, use of a visual schedule, positive feedback, and redirection. The district properly developed the student’s behavior intervention plan. The district also properly provided the parents a timely copy of the January 2013 IEP. The IEP developed on January 7, 2013, went into effect on January 21, 2013. The parents were provided a copy of the IEP on January 18, 2013, which was prior to the IEP’s implementation date.

In March 2013, the parents notified the district of discrepancies found in the January 7, 2013, IEP. Upon receiving the parent’s note, the district reviewed the IEP and related notes from the meeting, and found documentation errors in the IEP. The errors did not affect services provided to the student or how the IEP was implemented. The district corrected the errors and sent a revised copy of the IEP to the parents. In the parent’s note, the parent also requested changes that were not agreed upon at the January 2013 IEP team meeting. The district offered to meet with the parents to discuss their concerns, but the parents declined to meet. In correcting the documentation errors, the district did not make changes to the student’s IEP without a meeting. Because the district already corrected the errors, no further corrective action is required.

The IEP specified that the student would receive support from a special education paraprofessional throughout the school day. The IEP also specified that “in-service sign language training” would be provided to paraprofessional staff working with the student. The paraprofessional assigned was appropriately licensed and received the training as required by the IEP.

During the January 7, 2013 meeting, the IEP team, including the parents, agreed to discuss ESY services at the end of the school year. The IEP team met on June 7, 2013, and the IEP team determined ESY services were required. The services include nursing services. These services are being implemented during the summer of 2013.

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

//signed CST 6/20/2013
Carolyn Stanford Taylor
Assistant State Superintendent
Division for Learning Support