On October 6, 2023 (form dated October 2, 2023), the Department of Public Instruction (department) received a complaint under state and federal special education law from #### (complainant) against the #### (district). This is the department’s decision regarding that complaint. The identified issues are included below and pertain to the period of time beginning October 6, 2022.
Whether the district properly implemented the Individualized Education Program (IEP) of a student with a disability regarding behavioral and academic support services
School districts must provide each student with a disability with a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE). School districts meet their obligation to provide a FAPE to each student with a disability, in part, by implementing each student's IEP. 34 CFR §§300.323(c)(2) & 300.324. Each student’s IEP must address the student's needs that result from the student's disability in order to enable the student to be involved and make appropriate progress in the general education curriculum and toward their IEP goals and meet the student's other educational needs that result from the student's disability. The IEP must include a statement of the special education services to be provided to the student. 34 CFR §§300.320(a), 300.324(a). The district must ensure that the student's IEP is accessible to each regular education teacher, special education teacher, related services provider, and any other service provider who is responsible for its implementation and that they are informed of their specific responsibilities. 34 CFR § 300.323(d).
The complaint raises several concerns related to the district properly implementing the student’s IEP. The complaint first states that the student’s April 2023 IEP required an IEP meeting to be held in June 2023, and another one before the beginning of the 2023-24 school year. The student’s April 2023 IEP indicates that the student’s parents requested an IEP team meeting to be held prior to the end of the 2022-23 school year, and the district convened the student’s IEP team on June 1, 2023. Neither the April nor June 2023 IEP indicates that the district committed to holding another IEP team meeting before the start of the 2023-24 school year. The district properly implemented the student’s IEP regarding planned IEP team meetings.
The complaint further states that the district did not share information about the student with the student’s 2023-24 teachers as is reflected in the April 2023 IEP. However, the district submitted documentation indicating the case manager shared the student’s IEP and Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP) with the student’s 2023-24 school year teachers via email and explained how to interact with the student per the BIP in the body of the email. The district properly implemented the student’s IEP regarding sharing information with the student’s teachers.
In addition, the complaint states that following a behavioral incident on June 7, 2023, the school principal questioned the student prior to notifying the student’s parent, and that the parents were not contacted regarding concerns about the student’s behavior. The student’s parent thought the student’s IEP required that the student would not be questioned by administrators without first contacting the parent. While the student’s BIP states that parents should be contacted at the “earliest opportunity” for certain behaviors, neither the student’s IEP nor BIP requires the parents to be contacted prior to the student being questioned by administrators. The student’s BIP does require staff to contact the parents should the student’s behavior escalate to the point staff need to implement a provision of the BIP. The district submitted documentation of September staff communications to the student’s parent regarding behavior concerns and implementation of the student’s BIP. The district properly implemented the student’s IEP following the June incident and properly implemented the student’s BIP regarding informing parents when provisions of the student’s BIP were implemented.
Finally, the complaint expresses concerns that the student’s IEP was not followed on September 27, 2023, where the student was involved in a behavioral incident that resulted in injury to a staff person. During a general education class, the teacher indicated students who did not have incomplete assignments could leave their assigned seats to work with other students. The student went to work with another student, but the student had not yet completed all assignments. The teacher redirected the student twice by asking them to return to their seat. When the student did not comply, the teacher called for support consistent with the student’s BIP.
The complaint states that the student’s classroom teacher did not properly implement the student’s BIP during the incident. The student’s BIP states, “Step 1: ONE Redirection (up to 3 redirections before a break) …” The teacher redirected the student twice before contacting the student’s case manager for support, which is consistent with the language in the BIP. The complainant also raised concerns that the provision in the student’s IEP indicating that staff must “accept tests and assignments after deadlines without penalty, within the semester grading period,” meant that staff should not have redirected the student as the assignments should not have been considered incomplete at that point in the semester. This interpretation goes beyond what is required by the specific language of the IEP.
The student left the room before support arrived and eventually was met in the hallway by their case manager. The student’s BIP states that the student may meet with a staff person on their “resiliency team for co-regulation and consequence discussion”. The BIP also provides that when the student does not respond to redirection, they should have access to “student services per student or resiliency team request.” The student did not request to go to the student services area, but attempted to enter and found the door was locked. Another teacher and the student’s case manager who were in the hallway were part of the student’s resiliency team. The complaint states that the case manager denied the student access to student services and a member of their resiliency team as specified in the BIP. However, the door to the student services area was locked before the student and case manager arrived. The student did not request to go to the student services area prior to trying the door and had access to both the case manager and the other teacher in the hall who are members of the student’s resiliency team. The student did not stop to speak to either staff member. The student continued to their next class where the student’s behavior escalated, leading to the disciplinary action. The teacher’s and case manager’s actions were consistent with the student’s BIP.
Whether the district properly followed special education disciplinary requirements, including properly conducting a manifestation determination.
When a student with a disability is subject to a disciplinary change of placement, the district must determine whether the student’s conduct is a manifestation of the student’s disability within 10 school days of the decision to change placement. 34 CFR § 300.530. The district, the parent, and relevant members of the student's IEP team must review all relevant information in the student's file, including the student's IEP, any teacher observations, and any relevant information provided by the parents to determine if the conduct in question was caused by, or had a direct and substantial relationship to, the student's disability, or if the conduct in question was the direct result of the district's failure to implement the IEP. 34 CFR § 300.530(e). If the conduct is determined to be a manifestation of the student's disability, the IEP team must address the behavior by either conducting a Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) and implementing a BIP for the student or, if a BIP already has been developed, reviewing, and modifying the BIP, as necessary. 34 CFR § 300.530(f)(1). The student must be returned to the placement from which the student was removed unless the parent and the district agree to a change of placement as part of the modification of the student's behavioral intervention plan or one of the limited exceptions discussed below apply. 34 CFR § 300.530(f)(2).
During the September 27, 2023, incident, the student proceeded to their next class after being in the hallway. The student entered the classroom and sat down, and the case manager followed the student. The classroom teacher prevented other students from entering the classroom while the case manager tried to redirect the student out of the classroom. When the student ultimately got up to leave the classroom, they struck the case manager in the head with their computer tablet causing injury.
The district held a manifestation determination meeting on September 29, 2023, and determined that the conduct was not a manifestation of the student’s disability. The complaint states that in making this determination, the district considered only the student’s general disability category and not specific information about the way the disability affected the student. As evidence, the complainant states that the student engaged in conduct in a previous school year that was considered a manifestation of their disability due to the impulsive nature of the conduct at that time, yet the district did not consider the student’s impulsivity during the current manifestation determination meeting. However, documentation submitted by the district and interviews with district staff demonstrate while the team conducting the manifestation determination did discuss the student’s general disability category, they also spent a significant amount of time reviewing the student’s disability related conduct and behavior over the last few years, and with the exception of the student’s parent, did not believe it was an impulsive act. The team reviewed the student’s IEP, including their disability related needs, functional performance, goals, and supports. This team considered all required information when they determined that the conduct was not a manifestation of the student’s disability. The district properly followed special education disciplinary requirements, including properly conducting a manifestation determination.
Whether the district improperly utilized seclusion and/or physical restraint with the student.
State law prohibits the use of seclusion and/or physical restraint at school unless a student's behavior presents a clear, present, and imminent risk to the physical safety of the student or others and is the least restrictive intervention feasible. Seclusion means the involuntary confinement of a student, apart from other students, in a room or area from which the student is physically prevented from leaving. If seclusion is used, constant supervision of the student must be maintained, either by remaining in the room or area with the student or by observing the student through a window that allows the staff person to see the student at all times; the seclusion room or area must be free of objects or fixtures that may injure the student; the duration of the seclusion must be only as long as necessary to resolve the clear, present, and imminent risk to the physical safety of the student or others; and no door connecting the seclusion room may be capable of being locked. Wis. Stats. §§ 118.305(2)-(3) & (6).
The complaint states that the district inappropriately secluded the student on September 27, 2023, when a teacher prevented other students from entering the classroom the student entered and at least one staff member blocked the door to the hallway. The district and complainant agree that the student walked into the classroom during the transition time between classes and the case manager asked the classroom teacher to not allow other students into the room until the student left the room to go to the office. The student voluntarily entered the classroom, and staff preventing other students from immediately entering the classroom did not amount to confining the student. The student was not physically prevented from leaving the room, and staff directed the student to leave the room. There is no allegation of restraint in this complaint. The district did not utilize seclusion with the student.
This concludes our review of this complaint. This decision is final for the IDEA State Complaint process. These issues may be addressed through other dispute resolutions, including mediation and due process hearings. For more information, visit the department’s website at http://dpi.wi.gov/sped/dispute-resolution or contact the special education team at (608) 266-1781.
For questions about this information, contact dpispeddata@dpi.wi.gov (608) 266-1781