On June 23, 2015, the Department of Public Instruction (department) received a complaint under state and federal special education law from XXXXX against the XXXXX School District. On July 13, 2015, the department received notification that the parties agreed to participate in mediation related to the issue in the complaint. The parties requested the complaint investigation be put on hold, and the timeline for completing the decision be extended, to allow for the mediation. On September 4, 2015, the parent requested that the department reopen the complaint investigation. On September 18, 2015, the department received a complaint form from XXXXX requesting the department investigate an additional issue. This is the department’s decision regarding those complaints. The issues are whether the district, during the 2014-15 school year, properly responded to a parent’s request for an interpreter, and whether the district, during the 2015-16 school year, properly implemented the student’s individualized education program (IEP) regarding providing close proximity to the teacher, and properly responded to the parent’s request for additional assistance in the classroom.
On June 8, 2015, the IEP team met to review and revise the student’s IEP. During the meeting, the parent requested a sign language interpreter be provided for her child. The IEP team considered the request and determined, based on the needs of the student, an interpreter would not be appropriate. The team noted the student had a mild to moderate hearing loss and was making progress on her IEP annual goals and in the general education curriculum. The IEP team determined an FM system, as recommended by the audiologist, would be more appropriate for the student based on her individualized needs.
During the meeting, the parent also requested that the district provide a one-on-one aide for the student. The IEP team considered the request and determined, based on the needs of the student, a one-on-one aide would not be appropriate. IEP team members noted that the student was capable of transitioning throughout the day independently, with no safety concerns, and again noted that the student was making progress on her annual IEP goals and in the general education curriculum. The district properly responded to the parent’s requests.
The student’s IEP in effect for the 2015-16 school year provides for preferential seating to allow the student to see the visual aids. Staff interviews confirmed that staff members were aware of the supplementary aids and services in the student’s IEP, and this provision was consistently implemented. The district properly implemented the student’s IEP regarding close proximity to the teacher.
This concludes our review of this complaint.
//signed CST 11/17/2015
Carolyn Stanford Taylor
Assistant State Superintendent
Division for Learning Support