IDEA Complaint Decision 24-056

On May 6, 2024, the Department of Public Instruction (department) received a complaint under state and federal special education law from #### (parent) against the #### (district). This is the department’s decision regarding that complaint. The issue identified is whether the district, during the 2023-24 school year, properly fulfilled its responsibility to identify, locate, and evaluate a student suspected of having a disability.

 

School districts must ensure that all children with disabilities residing in the district who need special education and related services are identified, located, and evaluated. 34 CFR § 300.111(a). This responsibility is often referred to as “child find” and it is an affirmative duty. School districts may not take a passive approach and wait for others, including parents, to refer students. A licensed staff member employed by a local educational agency who reasonably believes a student has a disability, must make a special education referral. Wis. Stat. § 115.777(1)(b).

All referrals must be in writing and include the name of the student and the reasons why the person believes that the student is a student with a disability. Wis. Stat. § 115.777(2)(a). The district must accept and process all referrals that are submitted. Wis. Stat. § 115.777(3) If a parent’s request is ambiguous, districts must clarify with the parent whether the parent is requesting a special education evaluation and provide information on how to submit a written referral.

The student who is the subject of this complaint attended eighth grade in the district during the 2023-24 school year. Following an illness in the fall of 2023, the student began to experience anxiety. Late in the morning on November 14, 2023, the student had a panic attack at school. The student experienced dizziness, nausea, and vomiting. A school counselor provided calm music and breathing exercises to help the student. The student called the parent and asked to be picked up. The parent asked the student to walk to the district office. The parent called the district, but the student had already left school grounds and walked home.

 

On November 15, 2023, the student texted the parent regarding a second panic attack at school that occurred that morning in a bathroom. The student left school and walked home again. On November 16, 2023, the student stayed home. The principal emailed the parent that day, providing the number of absences for the school year so far and warning about starting the truancy process. On the morning of November 17, 2023, another district staff member notified the parent that a doctor’s note would be required to excuse the absence for that day and any future absences. The parent communicated with district staff on November 17, 2023, and November 19, 2023, indicating a doctor’s letter should be available soon. These communications did not identify specific symptoms or diagnoses.

On November 21, 2023, the district sent a letter to the parent again notifying the parent of the extensive absences and warning about initiating truancy proceedings. On November 29, 2023, the student was absent due to a panic attack at home. The student saw a doctor on December 7, 2023. The parent provided the district with the summary of the appointment, including medication prescribed for anxiety and panic attacks.

The district reported that staff reached out to both parents to set up a meeting to discuss attendance concerns with no responses on November 6, 2023, December 4, 2023, December 6, 2023, December 11, 2023, and January 3, 2024. District staff created a support plan, and the district’s counselor reached out to both parents by email prior to the district setting up a support plan on January 4, 2024. The main purpose of the plan was to help the student make up missed assignments. The student’s class schedule was also changed to include a morning study hall. On January 16, 2024, the district reached out to the parents about meeting to adjust the plan due to the change of semester.

On February 20, 2024, district personnel, the parent, and a county services coordinator met to identify supports beyond school that may help the student. At the meeting, the parent asked for information about an evaluation for a disability. The district’s school psychologist explained the differences between an individualized education program and a Section 504 plan to the parent. The parent indicated the explanation had been helpful. Following the meeting, the parent expressed interest in pursuing a Section 504 plan, and the school psychologist provided a referral form for the parent to review and sign. The parent returned the signed referral the following week.

The district suspended the student for an incident on March 8, 2024. The district reported that the student encouraged and recorded a physical altercation between two other students. On March 19, 2024, the district convened a meeting to address the behavior incident and discuss all educational options. On April 4, 2024, the parent filed paperwork to provide home-based private education to the student. The district attempted to contact the parent to continue the Section 504 evaluation without success.

District staff did not believe that the student had a disability because the student was engaged in the curriculum when attending and the student’s coping skills were sufficient. While the district was aware of the student’s anxiety and worked to address it, staff stated they did not know about the second panic attack at school and that they received limited medical information. In addition, the district provided information to the parent about the special education referral process, but the parent did not make a referral. Upon receiving this written complaint, the district contacted the parent to determine if the parent wanted to proceed with a special education evaluation, and the parent said that they did not wish to pursue one during the course of this investigation. Under the facts of the case, the district did not have reason to believe the student required specially designed instruction and did not have a responsibility to initiate a special education evaluation under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The district properly fulfilled its child find responsibility under IDEA.

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 information on the dispute resolution process under Section 504, contact the Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education at (312) 730-1560 or at OCR.Chicago@ed.gov.