IDEA Complaint Decision 23-110

On December 8, 2023 (form dated December 3, 2023), and January 4, 2024 (form dated January 1, 2024), 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 this complaint. The issues identified are whether the district, beginning December 8, 2022, properly developed the individualized education program (IEP) of a student with a disability regarding annual goals in the area of speech and language therapy and properly implemented the student’s IEP regarding speech and language therapy services and a communication device.

 

School districts meet their obligation to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) to each student with a disability, in part, by developing a program based on the student’s unique, disability-related needs that is reasonably calculated to enable the student to make progress appropriate considering 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 considering the child’s circumstances. The IEP must contain annual goals that are both ambitious and achievable so that the gap in academic achievement or functional performance is narrowed or closed during the period of the IEP. (34 CFR §§ 300.320-300.324; 115.78[2]; Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 137 S.Ct. 988). The IEP must include a statement of the special education, related services, and supplementary aids and services to be provided to the child, 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 student who is the subject of this complaint uses a speech generating device (SGD) and gestures to communicate. In addition to the speech and language therapy provided by the school according to the student’s IEP, the student receives private speech and language services from a therapist at a nearby children’s hospital. In the complaint, the student’s parent raised concerns that the school-based speech and language pathologist (SLP) and hospital-based therapist were not working on the same goals related to a motor-based treatment approach to improve oral movements and neural pathways. The parent believed the district’s SLP should also address the student’s medical speech goals, and that the school-based therapist and the medical based therapist should consistently communicate on the student’s goals and progress.

 

The student’s IEP team met on May 25, 2023, to review and revise the student’s IEP. The parent, the general education teacher, the SLP, a special education teacher, the local educational agency representative, the assistive technology specialist, the specially designed physical education teacher, and the physical therapist attended as IEP team members. At the meeting, the IEP team discussed the approach and the objectives the medical therapist used in the hospital. Although the student’s parent wanted the school’s SLP to focus on the same skills as the hospital-based SLP, the rest of the team felt that the school-based SLP should address the student’s disability-related educational need related to communication at school. The annual goals the IEP team developed at the meeting were based on the student’s need to be able to effectively communicate at school and improve their functional communication through the use of the device by exploring the vocabulary within the device, adding vocabulary to the device, and increasing their use of verbs to create noun/verb communication combinations. The communication goals were developed to address the student’s disability related needs specific to syntax, sentence structure, the use of the SGD system, and speech sound production. The student’s previous IEP included a goal targeting speech sounds, and the team agreed to continue this goal in the student’s annual IEP. The IEP team appropriately developed the student’s annual IEP goals regarding speech and language therapy. Although these goals differed from the medical goals created by the hospital therapist, they appropriately addressed the student’s disability related needs within the educational environment.

 

The student’s IEP provides for 180 minutes of direct service per month, which the district delivers in two 30-minute sessions per week, three weeks per month. The IEP also requires the SLP to provide the student 30 minutes of indirect services per month, in the general classroom, for observation and assistance. The SLP provides the indirect services during the fourth week of each month. The district provided the department evidence that the required speech and language services are consistently being provided in accordance with the IEP.

The student’s parent believed the SLP would collaborate with the hospital therapist on an ongoing basis to ensure both therapists were working toward similar objectives. The SLP has been in contact with the hospital therapist, however the student’s IEP does not include consultation with the hospital therapist. The district is properly implementing the IEP regarding speech and language therapy.

 

The SGD the student uses is a personal device, not a district-owned device and the student is to carry it from school to home and back every day. The parent noted when the student came home from school on Monday, December 12, 2023, the communication device and its charger were missing. The device was sent home with the student the next day, but the charger was still missing. Within the next few days, staff located the charger at school. Following this incident, the director ordered an extra charging cord. Additionally, staff added familiar communication applications to district-owned devices so the student could use them when the SGD was not available. The director stated the district supports the student’s use of the device but has also taken steps to ensure alternative devices are available to the student. The district properly implemented the IEP regarding the student’s communication device.

 

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.