IDEA Complaint Decision 23-090

On October 19, 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 whether the district, beginning October 19, 2022, properly developed and implemented the individualized education programs (IEPs) of two students with disabilities regarding safety concerns and adult supervision.

 

School districts must provide each student with a disability with a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment. School districts meet their obligation to provide FAPE to each student with a disability, in part, by developing an IEP based on the student’s unique, disability-related needs that is reasonably calculated to enable the student to make progress appropriate in light of the student’s circumstances, documenting that program in the IEP, and implementing the program as articulated in the IEP. For most students, the IEP must be designed to allow the student to progress from grade to grade, but if that is not possible, the IEP should be appropriately ambitious in light of the student’s circumstances. 34 CFR §§ 300.320-300.324; Wis. Stat. § 115.78[2]; Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 137 S.Ct. 988. Each student's IEP must include a statement of the special education, related services, and supplementary aids and services to be provided to the student, including the projected date for the beginning of the services and the anticipated duration of the services. All services must be clearly stated in the IEP in a manner that can be understood by all involved in the development and implementation of the IEP. 34 CFR §§ 300.320(a)(4) and (a)(7).

 

The complainant has two young children with disabilities who attended the same elementary school in the beginning of the 2023-24 school year. The younger student (Student A) has disability related needs in the areas of communication, social and emotional development, and participation in school routines. The older student (Student B) has disability related needs in language development, communication, and social and emotional development. Both students attend an after-school program that is located in the students’ school but is operated by a non-school district entity.

 

Student A’s IEP includes numerous supplementary aids and services including the use of timers and social stories to aid in the student’s understanding of directions, including transitions and self-care routines. The student also received specially designed instruction in adaptive/self-help skills in both regular and special education weekly.

 

In early October, Student A had an accident in the restroom during the school day and required staff assistance. The student’s shoes were wet, so the staff washed them. The shoes were still drying when the student went to their after-school program. District staff placed the student’s shoes in their backpack and informed the program staff. The program staff forgot about the shoes and told the parent the student had arrived without shoes. While this miscommunication was unfortunate, district staff implemented the student’s IEP properly when they provided the student adult assistance during the school day.

 

Student A’s IEP indicates they can request a preferred food with a verbal or visual reminder and then clean up before moving on to playtime. The parent expressed concern that the student was not eating their packed lunch at school, and rather was eating snack foods including dry cereal and cookies. The teacher explained that the student is a picky eater and chose to eat the snack foods provided by the student’s other parent. The student’s IEP does not address whether staff should ensure the student eats their packed lunch, and the student’s choices were not inconsistent with their IEP. After this concern was raised staff worked with the student’s parent to create a system to communicate what the student ate each day and when they used the bathroom. The district properly developed and implemented Student A’s regarding safety concerns and adult supervision.

 

Student B’s IEP includes supplementary aids and services such as visual schedules and cues to use when learning a new routine or when arriving or departing from school. The student’s IEP indicates they need support with zippers, buttons, and putting on winter clothes in the correct order. The parent complained that Student B came home without their coat on two afternoons.

 

The district properly developed student B’s IEP regarding safety concerns and adult supervision, however, the district did not properly implement the IEP when it did not provide Student B support at the end of the day on two occasions. The district has taken action to ensure Student B’s IEP is properly implemented moving forward, including adding additional visual supports for dressing for recess and dismissal. No further corrective action is required.

 

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.