On April 30, 2024 (form dated April 8, 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 that complaint. The issues identified are whether the district, beginning April 30, 2023:
● Properly developed an individualized education program (IEP) describing the present levels of academic achievement and functional performance of a student with a disability, and how the student’s disability affects the student’s involvement and progress in the general curriculum;
● Properly determined the student’s placement in the least restrictive environment (LRE); and
● Properly implemented the student’s IEP regarding holding an IEP team meeting prior to the 2023-24 school year and participation in a vocational program.
Whether the district properly developed an individualized education program (IEP) describing the present levels of academic achievement and functional performance of a student with a disability, and how the student’s disability affects the student’s involvement and progress in the general curriculum.
School districts must provide each student with a disability with a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the LRE. School districts meet their obligation to provide FAPE to each student with a disability, in part, by developing an IEP, documenting that program clearly in the IEP, and implementing the program. Each IEP must include a statement of the child's present level of academic achievement and functional performance, including how the child's disability affects the child's involvement and progress in the general curriculum. The IEP must be based on the student’s unique disability-related needs and be reasonably calculated to enable the student to make appropriate progress in light of the student’s circumstances. 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 child’s circumstances. 34 CFR §§ 300.320-300.324; Wis. Stat. § 115.78(2)
The student who is the subject of this complaint has a medical condition that is cognitively and physically degenerative in nature. Based on interviews with the complainant, who is also the student’s parent, and district staff, the student has shown a gradual decline in physical and cognitive abilities. The complainant alleges that the present level and disability related needs of the IEPs in effect from April 30, 2023, to the present are not an accurate reflection of the student’s current performance.
The student’s IEP team met on February 8, 2024, for two hours and then reconvened on April 26, 2024, to continue the development of the student’s annual IEP. The student’s parent, grandparent, and advocate attended the IEP meeting on April 26, 2024, and raised concerns about several items in the student’s IEP. The data included in the math section of the student’s present levels was collected from a standardized progress monitoring tool and the parent and grandparent felt that the information obtained was inaccurate. Staff explained the requirements of the tool and also pointed out the IEP included additional data from classroom-based assessments. The parent and grandparent also expressed concerns about the student’s goals and disability-related needs regarding writing as they interpreted them to require the student to physically write information. Staff explained to the parent and grandparent that the student was using assistive technology to address their writing goals, not physically writing. The use of assistive technology is documented in the student’s IEP under special factors as well as supplementary aids and services. The department’s investigator interviewed multiple members of the student’s IEP team, including the special education supervisor, principal, special education teacher, and transition coordinator, and they all agree that the statements of the student’s present levels are an accurate reflection of the student’s current performance both academically and functionally, and the disability-related needs are appropriate as described in the IEP.
IEP teams must determine whether each student with a disability will participate in the statewide and district wide assessments aligned to the academic standards applicable to all students, or alternate assessments aligned to alternate achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. In Wisconsin, a student with a most significant cognitive disability is typically characterized as functioning at least two and a half to three standard deviations below the mean in both adaptive behavior and cognitive functioning and performs substantially below grade level expectations on the academic content standards for the grade in which they are enrolled, even with the use of adaptations and accommodations. In addition, a student with the most significant cognitive disability requires extensive, direct individualized instruction and substantial support to achieve measurable gains across all content areas and settings. The Wisconsin Essential Elements, which are descriptions of what students with the most significant cognitive disabilities are expected to know and be able to do at each grade level, are the state’s alternate achievement standards.
The student’s parent expressed concerns about the student participating in classes using curriculum and materials aligned with the Wisconsin Essential Elements. In IEPs developed prior to the time period relevant to this complaint process, the student’s IEP team determined that it was appropriate for the student to participate in programming aligned with the Wisconsin Essential Elements. During the April 26, 2024, meeting, the IEP team documented all the concerns raised by the parent, grandparent, and advocate. Given the student’s unique needs, continuing the student’s participation in programming aligned to the Wisconsin Essential Elements as the student had for several years was not inappropriate. The district properly developed the student’s IEP, including accurately describing the student’s present levels of academic achievement and functional performance and how the student’s disability affects the student’s involvement and progress in the general curriculum.
Whether the district properly determined the student’s placement in the least restrictive environment (LRE).
Special education may be provided in a wide variety of settings, including the classroom, the home, hospitals, and other institutions. 34 C.F.R § 300.39: Wis. Stat. § 115.76 (15). In Wisconsin, placements of students with disabilities must be determined by IEP teams in conformity with LRE requirements. To the maximum extent appropriate, students must be educated with students who are non-disabled. Each student’s placement determination must be based on the student’s individual needs as specified in the IEP; be determined at least annually; be as close as possible to the student’s home; and, unless the student requires some other arrangement, in the school, the student would attend if not disabled. Students with disabilities should not be removed from education in an age-appropriate regular education classroom solely because of needed modifications in the general education curriculum. Removal from the regular education environment should only occur if the nature or severity of a student’s disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. The IEP team must document its placement decision, including its consideration of LRE, in the IEP. Wis. Stat. § 115.79; 34 CFR §§ 300.114 - 300.116.
The complainant alleges that the student was placed in a special education classroom without the parent’s knowledge. The student’s March 13, 2023, IEP documents the discussion of the IEP team and the student’s placement in the special education classroom, based on the student’s disability related needs. The IEP team noted that with modifications and accommodations in place, it was difficult for the student to maintain the pace of instruction in the regular education classroom. The IEP includes information that the student would often become fatigued in the regular education classroom and documented the student has been less tired and is not falling asleep in the special education classroom. Additionally, the student was more alert and made steady progress while in the self-contained classroom. The IEP also notes that the graduation policy was also explained to the parent and student at this time. The IEP developed on April 26, 2024, documents the student’s placement in the special education classroom. During this IEP meeting, the student was asked if they liked their class and they stated “yes.” When asked if they were learning in this class, the student stated “yes.” Interviews with district staff, including the principal, special education supervisor, transition coordinator, and special education teacher, confirm that the graduation policy was shared and explained with the parent during this meeting. The IEP also documents the parent's concerns about the graduation policy and the expectation the student would remain in school until the age of 21. Given the student’s unique needs, continuing the special education placement was not inappropriate. The district properly determined the student’s placement in the least restrictive environment.
Whether the district properly implemented the student’s IEP regarding holding an IEP team meeting prior to the 2023-24 school year and participation in a vocational program.
The parent of a student with a disability may request an IEP team meeting at any time, and the district should grant any reasonable request for an IEP team meeting. If the district denies the parent's request for an IEP team meeting, the district must provide the parent with a notice of refusal in writing and include an explanation of why the district refuses to grant the request. 34 CFR § 300.503. In Wisconsin, beginning during the school year when a student with a disability reaches age 14 and updated each year after, the student’s IEP must include a statement of appropriate, measurable postsecondary goals for the student related to training, education, employment, and, where appropriate, independent living skills. Wis. Stat. § 115.787(2)(g). The IEP must also include transition services needed to assist the student in reaching those goals. Wis. Stat. § 115.787(2)(g). The district must invite the student to participate in any IEP team meeting to consider the student's postsecondary goals and the transition services needed to assist the student in reaching those goals.34 CFR § 300.321(b)(1). If the student does not attend, the district must take other steps to ensure that the student's preferences and interests are considered. The meeting invitation must indicate that a purpose of the meeting will be the consideration of the postsecondary goals and transition services for the child. 34 CFR § 300.322(a)(2)(i)(A). Any time a district proposes or refuses to initiate or change the postsecondary goals, transition services, and course of study of a student with a disability, the district must provide the parents prior written notice, including, if applicable, a copy of the student’s IEP with the student’s post-secondary transition plan, a reasonable time before any proposed changes take effect. 34 CFR §§ 300.322(f) and 300.503.
The complainant alleges that they requested to hold an IEP team meeting prior to the start of the 2023-24 school year. The IEP dated March 13, 2023, does not contain documentation of the parent request to hold an IEP team meeting prior to the 2023-24 school year. District staff interviewed also confirmed that they never received any written or verbal communication from the complainant requesting an IEP team meeting before the start of the 2023-24 school year. The district did not improperly implement the student’s IEP by not holding an IEP team meeting prior to the beginning of the 2023-24 school year.
The IEP team held an annual IEP team meeting on February 8, 2024. The meeting lasted two hours and the parent requested to continue to the meeting at a later date. The IEP team scheduled a second meeting for March 13, 2024, but the parent had to reschedule due to illness. As a result of the parent’s inability to attend the scheduled IEP team meeting, the district opted to hold the annual meeting at a later date to ensure the parent was present and able to participate in the meeting. As a result of ensuring the IEP team included all required team members, including the parent, the IEP was not finalized until April 26, 2024. However, there was no lapse in services as the student’s existing IEP remained in effect until the IEP team met and finalized the current IEP. Due to the circumstances of this case and the fact the student continued to receive FAPE, no additional correction action is required. During the 2022-23 school year, the student received their vocational experiences through the district’s Community Assessment and Training Program. During the 2023-24 school year, the student did not attend the community program as outlined in the IEP and received school-based specially designed instruction services in travel training, life skills instruction, job skills instruction, and utilizing assistive technology. The IEP dated April 26, 2024, documents that the student will participate in a new community-based work experience during the 2024-25 school year. The district properly implemented the student’s IEP regarding the student’s participation in a vocational program.
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