On August 30, 2024 (complaint dated August 29, 2024), the Department of Public Instruction (department) received a complaint under state and federal special education law from #### (complainant) against the #### (school). This is the department’s decision regarding the complaint. The issues identified are discussed below and pertain to the 2023-24 school year.
The school is a public independent charter school authorized under Wisconsin law and is not affiliated with any public school district. The school serves students from 4-year-old kindergarten through twelfth grade. The school must comply with the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) as a local education agency (LEA).
The student who is the subject of this complaint attended eighth grade at the school during the 2023-24 school year. The student has documented disability related needs in the areas of executive functioning, social communication skills, self-help skills, and behavior.
Whether the school properly provided the parents with notices of their procedural safeguards.
Local education agencies must provide parents of each student with a disability a copy of the notice of procedural safeguards once per school year. Additionally, local education agencies must provide the parents a copy upon initial referral or parent request for evaluation, upon receipt of the first State complaint or due process complaint in a school year, in accordance with the discipline procedures, and at any time upon request by a parent. 34 CFR § 300.504(a).
The parent alleged in the complaint that “at no point in the IEP process that began in the 2022/23 school year, did [the school] ever provide us as a family with information about our rights under IDEA and the process of seeking formal redress through DPI.” A portion of this allegation concerns circumstances more than one year prior to the date the department received the complaint and is therefore beyond the scope of this complaint. 34 CFR § 300.153(c). Regarding the time period under review during the 2023-24 school year, the school submitted evidence that it provided the parent with notice of procedural safeguards at the same time as an annual IEP team meeting invitation as an attachment to an email the special education teacher sent on August 23, 2023. This notice included information regarding dispute resolution options, including procedures for filing a state complaint, due process hearing, and discipline protections. The school provided additional notice of procedural safeguards to the parent along with its invitation to the manifestation determination review meeting on April 11, 2024. During the 2023-24 school year, the school properly provided the parent with notice of procedural safeguards.
Whether the school properly implemented the individualized education program (IEP) of a student with a disability regarding assigning grades.
Local education agencies meet their obligation to provide a free appropriate public education to each student with a disability, in part, by developing and implementing each student’s IEP. The IEP must include a statement of the special education services to be provided to the student, and if the student's IEP team determines the student's behavior impedes the student's learning or that of others, the IEP team must consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports to address the behavior 34 CFR §§ 300.320(a) and 300.324(a).The IEP must include a statement of the special education, related services, and supplementary aids and services to be provided to the child, 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). IEPs must be implemented by school staff as written, and staff responsible for implementing the student's IEP must be informed of their specific responsibilities. 34 CFR § 300.323 and Wis. Stat. § 115.787. Federal and state special education law does not include requirements about methodology or reporting of grades, and local education agencies have discretion in determining how grades are calculated and provided to parents.
The parent stated that the school failed to adjust academic evaluation and grading based on the student’s IEP after the school sent them a final report card that “had multiple zeros on a scale that doesn't even include zero as an option.” However, the student’s IEP does not include grading accommodations. The school explained that it sent the third quarter progress report to parents on March 22, 2024. On the quarterly progress communication, a zero or blank next to an item means that the school has not seen evidence of that standard being addressed. It indicates that the student either has not yet received a lesson or assignment related to that item or has not yet demonstrated that skill or understanding even if they had received instruction on that item. The school does not factor zeros or blanks on quarterly progress communications into grades. The school explains this to all parents as a general practice during quarterly progress communications and quarterly conferences. The school did not improperly implement the student’s IEP regarding assigning grades.
Whether the school properly followed special education disciplinary requirements, including properly conducting a manifestation determination and providing the student services during periods of disciplinary removals, and properly responded to a request from the student’s parent for special education records.
When a local education agency decides to impose a disciplinary change of placement for a violation of the code of student conduct, the parent and relevant members of the student’s IEP team must conduct a manifestation determination to determine if the conduct in question was caused by or had a direct and substantial relationship to the student’s disability or was the direct result of the local education agency's failure to implement the student’s IEP. 34 CFR § 300.530(e). The determination must occur within 10 school days of the decision to change placement. 34 CFR § 300.536.
The local education agency, the parent, and relevant members of the student's IEP team must review all relevant information in the student's file, including the student's IEP, any teacher observations, and any relevant information provided by the parents to determine if the conduct in question was caused by, or had a direct and substantial relationship to, the student's disability, or if the conduct in question was the direct result of the local education agency's failure to implement the IEP. 34 CFR § 300.530(e). IEP team decisions are made through a process of consensus decision making with involvement of all IEP team participants. If consensus cannot be reached, the local educational agency must make required decisions, and if the parent disagrees, the parent may utilize the special education dispute resolution processes. IEP team participants may include, at the discretion of the parent or the LEA, other individuals who have knowledge or special expertise about the student. All IEP team participants are equal participants on the IEP team. Wis. Stat. § 115.78 (1m); 34 CFR § 300.321.
If the conduct is determined to be a manifestation of the student's disability, the IEP team must address the behavior by either conducting a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) and implementing a behavior intervention plan (BIP) for the student or, if a BIP already has been developed, reviewing and modifying the BIP as necessary. 34 CFR §300.530(f)(1). The student must be returned to the placement from which the student was removed unless the parent and the local education agency agree to a change of placement as part of the modification of the student's behavioral intervention plan, or in limited exceptional circumstances not applicable in this complaint. 34 CFR § 300.530(f)(2). After a student has been subjected to 10 days of disciplinary removal in a school year, during subsequent removals, the local education agency must provide each student services to the extent necessary to enable them to continue to participate appropriately in the general curriculum, although in another setting, and to progress toward achieving their IEP goals. 34 CFR § 530(d)(1)(i).
Under IDEA, a local education agency must comply with a parent’s request to review special education records without unnecessary delay and before any meeting regarding an IEP. In no case may the response be more than 45 days after the request has been made. 34 CFR § 300.613.
On March 18, 2024, the student inflicted self-harm using a razor blade they brought to school. The student required medical attention but was able to answer questions about the incident. The student admitted they had been bringing razor blades to school for the past two weeks.
School staff sent the student home that same morning and as part of their investigation into the incident and conducted interviews with adults who supported the student and the student’s peers. That same day, school staff contacted law enforcement and informed the family that the student would not be allowed to return to school until an investigation could be completed. The investigation concluded the student presented an imminent high safety risk, primarily for self-harm. On March 19, 2024, the school conducted additional interviews, including a parent conference, and created a case plan. The school sent the student’s parents a notice of suspension on March 19, 2024. The family emailed the school requesting copies of the investigation and school board policies. School leaders informed the student’s family on March 20, 2024, that no further communication regarding requests for IEP revisions, school board policies, and copies of the incident reports would be answered until after spring break due to the ongoing investigation.
The school was not in session in late March and early April due to conferences and spring break. On April 1, 2024, the school sent the student’s parents a notice of expulsion, alleging the student engaged in conduct which endangered the property, health, or safety of school staff and students in violation of the school’s family handbook. The school cited the March 18, 2024, incident, a February incident in which the student injured a peer with a pen, instances of the student’s inappropriate use of school email, and multiple instances of the student’s cyberbullying of peers.
On April 3, 2024, the school sent the parents an email acknowledging their record request of March 20, 2024, and notifying them that the student records would be provided the next day, and the IEP team meeting would be scheduled for April 5, 2024. The parents responded that they were unable to meet that day because they needed more time to review the student’s records. On April 5, 2024, the school provided links to electronic records to the parents and asked to schedule an IEP team meeting on April 8, 2024. The parents asked for more time to review the records received and requested additional records, including unredacted versions of previously provided documents, daily skill reports, incident reports, school policies regarding school safety, suspensions, expulsions, or conduct, copies of the initial and revised threat assessment, and copies of any functional behavior analysis and behavior plans completed by the school. On April 9, 2024, the school provided the parents with links to additional electronic records. The school provided the parents requested student records promptly ahead of the manifestation determination meeting. The school agreed to reschedule the manifestation determination meeting in order to allow the family and the family’s advocate time to review the records prior to the meeting. The school properly responded to a request from the student’s parent for special education records.
School staff, the student, the student’s family, and the family’s advocate met in person as an IEP team to conduct a manifestation determination review on April 12, 2024. The school’s legal counsel attended the meeting remotely. The IEP team reviewed information about the student regarding attendance, academic achievement, a portfolio of daily information, electronic communication records, and the student’s IEP. During discussions, school staff realized the family had a different version of the IEP than did school staff.
During the manifestation determination meeting, the family’s advocate asked questions about the student’s initial evaluation in 2022. School staff realized they did not have immediate access to assessment materials that the student’s IEP team had reviewed as part of the 2022 evaluation. The school’s LEA representative tried to explain that the team had the option to pause or adjourn the meeting to retrieve the documents, but the IEP team decided to press on with the information they had at hand. The meeting was highly contentious and lasted approximately eight hours. Ultimately, the IEP team decided it had sufficient information to complete the manifestation determination. The IEP team concluded that although the official version of the student’s IEP did not include it, the school had not implemented the accommodation of providing the student a quiet space within the classroom as the parents believed was required. Additionally, the IEP team concluded that the behavior, including bringing razor blades to school, inflicting self-harm, and the alleged electronic communications, was a manifestation of the student’s disability.
The school did not proceed with expulsion and allowed the student to return to school. The student was excused from school attendance for medical reasons the week following the manifestation determination. During that time, the school began the process to obtain parental consent to conduct a functional behavioral assessment, but the parents withdrew the student from the school on April 20, 2024. The school timely conducted the manifestation determination. The IEP team thoroughly reviewed relevant documentation during the meeting. The student’s family contended they did not have copies of all relevant information to review, including the other version of the student’s IEP. The LEA representative attempted to explain that the school could obtain the missing information promptly. The IEP team had sufficient opportunity to decide whether to proceed, pause, or adjourn the meeting. The team determined that under the unique circumstances presented by the different versions of the student’s IEP, the school did not properly implement the IEP.
The student missed eight days of school while suspended during the 2023-24 school year, so therefore the requirement to provide services during the periods of disciplinary removal did not yet apply. The family withdrew the student from the school before the student’s expected return and prior to the school obtaining parental consent for a functional behavioral assessment. The school properly followed special education disciplinary requirements.
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