IDEA Complaint Decision 24-068

On May 20, 2024 (form dated May 13, 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, during the 2023-24 school year, properly documented decisions made by the individualized education program (IEP) team of a student with a disability, properly provided the student’s parent prior written notice including a copy of the student’s IEP before its implementation, and properly implemented the student’s IEP regarding assistive technology.

Whether the district properly documented decisions made by the IEP team of a student with a disability.

 

School districts must provide each student with a disability a free, appropriate, public education (FAPE). School districts provide FAPE, in part, by developing a program that meets the student’s unique needs, documenting that program in the student’s IEP, and implementing the program as articulated. 34 CFR § 300.324.

The student who is the subject of the complaint transitioned from elementary to middle school at the beginning of the 2023-24 school year. The student’s IEP team first met in fall of 2023. After receiving a copy, the parent noted several clerical errors in the IEP such as the incorrect school name and brought these to the attention of the student’s case manager. The case manager agreed to revise the IEP and offered the parent the option of an in person meeting or to review and revise the IEP without holding a meeting. The parent preferred to revise the IEP without holding a meeting. The student’s case manager completed the revisions accordingly on December 5, 2023. The case manager also followed up with the parent on subsequent questions the parent had about one of the student’s goals. The district properly documented decisions made by the student’s IEP team.

 

Whether the district properly provided the student’s parent prior written notice including a copy of the student’s IEP before its implementation.

Prior written notice must be given to the parents of a child with a disability a reasonable time before the local educational agency (LEA) proposes or refuses to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child or the provision of FAPE to the student. Among several required components, this notice must include a description of the action proposed or refused by the LEA, an explanation of why the LEA proposes or refuses to take the action, and a description of other options that the IEP team considered and the reasons why those options were rejected. 34 CFR § 300.503. Following a change to a student's IEP, district staff may provide proper prior written notice by providing parents a copy of the finalized IEP and placement page before implementing the changes. The provision of a draft IEP does not provide adequate prior written notice.

The student’s fall IEP meeting was held on October 23, 2023, with an implementation date of November 19, 2023. The parent did not receive a final copy of the IEP until November 30, 2023. The district did not provide prior written notice before the IEP’s implementation.

While the district did not properly provide the parent a copy of the IEP prior to its implementation, the district provided documentation demonstrating staff began implementing the IEP in a timely manner. Data within the student’s January 2024 progress report likewise demonstrated progress the student continued to make in their goals. The district has provided the department documentation of changes made to their IEP review and processing timeline and demonstrated that the changes have been successful in ensuring parents are provided a final copy of the IEP prior to implementation. Given there was no lapse in the student’s services and the district has taken corrective action, no additional action is needed at this time.

Whether the district properly implemented the student’s IEP regarding assistive technology.

Each student’s IEP must contain annual goals for the student 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 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 IEP must be written in a manner that clearly describes the school district’s commitment of resources to the parent and all involved in developing and implementing the IEP. The IEP must be accessible to staff responsible for implementing the student’s IEP, and they must be informed of their specific responsibilities. IEPs must be implemented as written. (34 CFR § 300.323; Wis. Stat. § 115.787).

The student’s current IEP includes an annual goal regarding technology integration, with corresponding specially designed instruction in the use of assistive technology The instruction occurs 15 minutes three times per week in the special education classroom and an additional 10 minutes two times per week in the general education classroom. The student’s IEP provides the student supplementary aids and services of text to speech for district wide and state assessments and writing tasks, audiobooks, use of a word processor, word prediction software, and a voice dictation tool. Additionally, the student’s IEP indicates they can use a scribe when handwriting is required; no penalty for spelling errors in written work; and paraprofessional support in social studies and science to reinforce the use of technology.

The parent reported issues with the student’s assistive technology not working. For example, the text reader would read only small paragraphs of a text, but not the text in its entirety. The parent also indicated there was not a text reader available for the student’s social studies and science curriculum. The parent acknowledged the student has access to additional technology options but indicated the student has to leave the classroom for these to work due to the noise level. The parent further noted the student had not learned how to track their assignments.

To address the parent’s concerns about the functioning of the technology, district technology staff checked the student’s computer and affirmed the computer and apps were working as they should. District staff reported having observed the student access technology in their classrooms, including audiobooks, text-to-speech and speech-to-text in all classes. The student always has the option to leave the classroom when the student feels they need a quieter setting. The student also has headphones that may be used in the general education classrooms. Paraprofessionals have likewise scribed for the student on occasion. The district reported staff have also observed times the student did not want to use assistive technology tools. The district properly implemented the student’s IEP regarding assistive technology

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.