IDEA Complaint Decision 23-085

On October 9, 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 issues identified are described below and apply to the period of time beginning October 9, 2022.

 

Whether the district properly implemented the individualized education program (IEP) of a student with a disability regarding direct support in class.

 

Each student’s IEP must include a statement of the special education, related services, supplementary aids and services, and program modifications or supports for school staff to be provided based on each student’s unique needs. IEPs must describe services so the level of the district’s commitment of resources is clear to parents and other IEP team members. The description of the amount, frequency, location, and duration of each service must be appropriate to the specific service and stated in the IEP, in a manner clear to all who are involved in both the development and the implementation of the IEP. All services must be provided as described in the IEP. 34 CFR § 300.323(a).

 

In the complaint, the student’s parent expressed concerns that at the beginning of the 2023-24 school year, the student was not being provided direct support in class as required by their IEP. The IEP in effect for the student during the period relevant to this complaint does not include a service described as “direct support in class,” but does include a supplementary service described as, “direct supervision in specials, lunch, and recess.” The department’s investigator interviewed two teachers and three paraprofessionals who worked with the student. All staff interviewed described the system the district uses to inform staff of their IEP responsibilities at the beginning of the school year. All staff were aware of the requirement to provide the specified direct supervision for the student, described how they consistently provided the service, and were unable to recall any instances where they were unable to provide direct supervision of the student. The district provided the department with copies of student and teacher schedules which showed that staff were consistently available to provide the student direct supervision in specials, lunch, and recess. The schedules also show that there were specific adults responsible for the student’s supervision throughout the school day. The district properly implemented the student’s IEP regarding direct support.

 

Whether the district properly determined the student’s eligibility for extended school year (ESY) services.

 

ESY services are required special education and related services provided beyond the limits of the school term, in accordance with a student’s IEP, which are necessary to ensure the student receives a free, appropriate public education (FAPE). If a student’s parent or any other member of a student’s IEP team raises the issue of ESY eligibility for a student, the IEP team must determine whether the child requires ESY services in order to receive FAPE. Extended school year services must be provided if a student's IEP team determines, on an individual basis, that the services are necessary for the provision of FAPE to the student. 34 CFR § 300.106.

 

No member of the student’s IEP team interviewed by the department’s investigator recalled any IEP team member raising the issue of ESY eligibility for the student during the time period relevant to this complaint. District staff related in interviews with the department’s investigator that the student had not demonstrated regression of skills during school breaks, and that the student made minimal but consistent progress. Staff agreed they would have convened the IEP team to discuss the need for ESY services had the facts related to the student’s progress been different. The department did not encounter any other evidence in reviewing the record of this complaint which would give rise to an inference that district staff should have recognized a need for ESY and brought the matter to the student’s IEP team for consideration. The district properly determined the student’s need for ESY services.

 

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.