IDEA Complaint Decision 24-050

On May 3, 2024 (form dated May 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 that complaint. The issue is whether the district, beginning May 3, 2023, properly determined the placement of a student with a disability in the least restrictive environment (LRE).

 

In Wisconsin, each student’s individualized education program (IEP) team determines the appropriate educational placement for the student. In determining the appropriate educational placement, the IEP team must observe LRE requirements which means the IEP team must ensure that the student is educated, to the maximum extent appropriate, with students who are not disabled. Special classes, separate schooling, or other removal from the regular education environment should only occur if education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. 34 CFR 300.114 (a)(2). A student should not be removed from education in age-appropriate regular classrooms solely because of needed modifications in the general education curriculum. 34 CFR §. 300.116

 

The student who is the subject of this complaint was placed by their IEP team at a private school for students with disabilities for the 2023-24 school year. The student’s IEP team met to revise the student’s IEP in October 2023. The team explained the student required this placement because they exhibited unsafe responses due to their disability, which included decreased stamina, low tolerance for frustration, difficulty with self-regulation, and inability to determine school appropriate responses or follow routines.

On April 24, 2024, the student’s IEP team reconvened to discuss the student’s placement. During that meeting the student’s parents expressed their wish that the student should return to the district school as soon as possible rather than continue the placement at the private alternative school. The parents questioned whether the current arrangement required the student to earn their way back into the regular school.

 

The student’s parents explained to the department’s investigator that they had originally been told the student’s placement at the private school would be temporary. They believed the student was ready to be back in school with their peers. They asserted the student had trouble with other students at the private school as some were aggressive and non-verbal. The private school staff confirmed this, but also explained the student was moved to another class in the spring with other students who were older and could better communicate and serve as role models, and the student’s behavior improved. When the student was moved to the new class, the number of behavior incidents involving the student decreased from two incident reports in January 2024, to only one in April 2024 and in May 2024. The student’s new classroom had five classmates, which appeared to improve the student’s focus and behavior. Therefore, at the April 24, 2024, IEP team meeting, the team discontinued the student’s one-to-one paraprofessional support. According to district documentation, the IEP team noted there was progress sufficient to reach the student’s annual behavior goal as of March 2024. At the IEP meeting on April 24, 2024, just one month later, the team noted the student had made progress regarding their use of self-regulation strategies in small groups or in one-to-one settings.

 

At the April 24, 2024, IEP meeting, the occupational and physical therapists noted the student had made progress over the last few weeks. The IEP team discussed that the student was making progress in a small group on regulation skills but did not believe they would be ready to the district’s regular education classroom with 18-25 students even with accommodations and supports in place. The IEP team noted the student was currently enjoying school, was having minimal behavioral escalations, and was able to complete academic work at their level. The IEP did not discuss, nor document other options considered and ultimately opted to continue the student’s placement at the private school. The IEP team suggested meeting again in October or November of 2024 to see how the student was progressing before making the placement at the district school.

 

The district did not properly determine the student’s placement in the least restrictive environment. While the IEP team documented they did not believe the student was ready to be successful in a regular classroom with 18-25 students, immediately placing the student in the regular classroom was not the sole option. The team did not consider other options, for example, placing the student in a smaller class at the district school. Additionally, the IEP team was not willing to transition the student back to the district school at the beginning of the school year. While the fact that the student was experiencing success at the private school was an important consideration, it was not a sufficient reason to foreclose discussion of less restrictive options for the student. Within thirty days of the date of this decision, the IEP team must meet to properly determine placement including discussion and documentation of placement options considered and rejected. Within ten days of the IEP meeting, the district must submit a copy of the IEP 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.