On December 11, 2023 (form dated December 5, 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 are whether the district, beginning December 11, 2022, properly implemented the individualized education program (IEP) of a student with a disability regarding supplementary aids and services, assistive technology, and specially designed instruction; properly developed the student’s IEP so that it is reasonably calculated to enable the student to make appropriate progress considering the student’s circumstances; properly considered the results of an outside evaluation obtained by the student’s parents; and properly responded to a parent’s request for student records.
Whether the district properly implemented the individualized education program (IEP) of a student with a disability regarding assistive technology, as a supplementary aid and service, and specially designed instruction.
School districts must provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to each student with a disability by developing an IEP that meets the student's unique needs and by implementing special education and related services in accordance with the 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 student who is the subject of this complaint had four different versions of their IEP in effect during the time period relevant to this complaint, with IEP meeting dates of June 29, 2022; January 23, 2023; May 31, 2023; and October 5, 2023. All of these IEPs include three different supplementary aids and services related to assistive technology. The student has the use of assistive technology when working on district-issued technology, they “can use text to speech when having to read material on the computer that is above [their] … current independent reading level,” they “can use speech to text when having to develop written work of 3 sentences or more,” and they “can use word prediction software when having to develop written work of 3 sentences …” Through interviews district staff acknowledged that many assignments provided in the student’s regular education environment are not presented electronically. Therefore, the assignments were not presented in a way that allowed the student to use assistive technology when reading or writing. The complaint states that district staff do not always use the time designated in the student’s schedule for specially designed instruction (SDI) and instead staff use the time to assist the student with other work. The district acknowledged this as an issue during the 2022-23 school year and at an IEP team meeting on May 31, 2023, determined that the student would receive compensatory services during the 2023-24 school year “for services missed during the 2022-23 school year.”
The complaint also states that during the current school year district staff are again utilizing some of the student’s SDI time to assist the student with completion of other classwork. The complaint references an email the student’s case manager sent where they indicated they helped the student with other assignments. When questioned, the student’s case manager explained that they were referencing times the student came to them outside of scheduled times for SDI where the student looked for additional help with some assignments. However, the IEPs during the current school year state that the student should receive 45 minutes of SDI for literacy skills each day and 30 minutes of SDI for math three times a week. Based on documentation the district submitted as part of this investigation, the district did not consistently provide every session of SDI each week as required by the student’s IEP. The district did not properly implement the student’s IEP regarding assistive technology, and specially designed instruction.
Whether the district properly developed the student’s IEP so that it is reasonably calculated to enable the student to make appropriate progress considering the student’s circumstances.
School districts meet their obligation to provide a 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; 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). Districts are not required to identify specific instructional methodologies in an IEP unless the student’s IEP team has determined a specific instructional method is necessary for the student to receive a FAPE. 71 Fed. Reg. 46665 (2006).
The complainant raised multiple concerns related to this issue, based largely on their perception that the reading instruction provided by district staff does not provide the student a direct, systemic, explicit, multimodal literacy program appropriate to meet the student’s needs. The student works with an outside tutor who uses a particular reading methodology with the student. In developing the student’s IEP, the district took many steps to consider input from the complainant and the tutor regarding the student’s reading instruction. While the district does not utilize the tutor’s preferred methodology with students at the same grade level as the student, it has other methods and techniques for staff to employ. In this student’s case, the district involved multiple staff members to ensure the methods staff utilized were appropriate for the student. For example, the district’s Acting Academic Officer communicated with the family multiple times in developing the student’s reading instruction.
At the IEP meeting on May 31, 2023, the team determined that the student did not meet their annual literacy goal but did meet their annual math goal. Based on IEP team discussions, the team developed a new math goal. The team also divided the student’s literacy goal into two separate goals, one addressing the student’s reading and the other addressing the student’s writing and spelling. This was done in order to better meet the student’s needs and with input from the complainant and the student’s private tutor. Following the family’s request, the IEP team reconvened in October 2023 to review the student’s goals due to gains made over the Summer of 2023 and adjusted the student’s goals accordingly.
While the district did not make every change to the student’s IEP the parent requested, the IEP documents discussions related to the parent’s suggestions, and the student continues to make progress in the general education curriculum and toward achieving their IEP goals. The district properly developed the student’s IEP so that it is reasonably calculated to enable the student to make appropriate progress considering the student’s circumstances.
Whether the district properly considered the results of an outside evaluation obtained by the student’s parents.
As part of an evaluation for special education, the IEP team must review existing evaluation data on the child, including evaluations and information provided by the parents of the child. 34 CFR § 300.305. LEAs must ensure that parents are able to meaningfully participate in IEP team meetings which includes the consideration of information the parents present. 34 CFR §§ 300.324(b)(1)(ii)(C), 300.501.
The complainant has concerns about the student’s initial special education evaluation which occurred more than one year prior to the department’s receipt of the complaint. The district identified the student as having a disability under the category of Specific Learning Disability (SLD). Outside of school, the student has been diagnosed with dyslexia, but the district did not use the term dyslexia to describe the student’s disability in the student’s IEP.
The district explained that dyslexia is not specified in the IEP as the student’s impairment because it is not a separate disability category under Wisconsin law. However, the district asserts that despite not labeling the student’s impairment as “dyslexia” it has included all relevant information about the student’s reading performance in the student’s IEPs and continues to thoroughly consider all information submitted by the parent, including the information from outside evaluations. The district properly considered the results of an outside evaluation obtained by the student’s parents.
Whether the district properly responded to a parent’s request for student records.
A school district must permit parents to inspect and review any education records relating to their children that are collected, maintained, or used by the school district. The school district must comply with a request without unnecessary delay and before any meeting regarding an IEP, and in no case more than 45 days after the request has been made. 34 CFR § 300.613(a). “Pupil records" means all records relating to individual pupils maintained by a school. Wis. Stats. § 118.123(1)(d)1.
The complainant states they have made numerous requests for documents from the district that have not been provided, including service records, work samples, charts, lesson plans, documents related to the student’s IEP goals, and any emails or communications the district has on its server related to the student. As part of this investigation, the department reviewed multiple emails illustrating that the district has regularly provided records to the complainant. The complainant’s requests for information have been quite expansive, and the district provided existing records responsive to the requests. The district is not required to create records solely for the purpose of responding to a parent’s request. The district properly responded to the parent’s requests for student records.
Within 30 days of the date of this decision, the district must reconvene the student’s IEP team to determine the following:
● Whether the student needs compensatory services for their assistive technology, and specially designed instruction (during the 2023-24 school year) not being properly implemented; and
● The district must submit a copy of the revised IEP to the department within 10 days of the IEP team meeting.
Additionally, within 30 days of the date of this decision, the district must develop and submit to the department for approval a corrective action plan (CAP). This plan must include procedures for the following:
● Informing staff of their responsibilities under the IEP, specifically with providing assistive technology as written in students’ IEPs;
● Appropriate staff are trained on the above; and
● Documentation supporting these steps are submitted to the department.
All noncompliance identified above must be corrected as soon as possible but in no case, more than one year from the date of this decision. 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