IDEA Complaint Decision

On September 3, 2024 (form dated August 27, 2024), the Department of Public Instruction (department) received a complaint under state and federal special education law #### (complainant) against the #### (district). This is the department’s decision regarding that complaint. The issues are described below and apply to the time period beginning September 3, 2023.

 

Whether the district properly implemented the individualized education program (IEP) of a student with a disability regarding physical therapy and regular movement

 

School districts meet their obligation to provide a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) to each student with a disability, in part, by developing a program based on the student’s unique disability-related needs that are reasonably calculated to enable the student to make progress appropriate considering the student’s circumstances, documenting that program in the IEP, and implementing the program as articulated in the IEP. The IEP must contain annual goals 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 district must ensure that the student's IEP is accessible to each regular education teacher, special education teacher, related services provider, and any other service provider who is responsible for its implementation and that they are informed of their specific responsibilities. 34 CFR § 300.323(d).

 

The IEP team for the student who is the subject of this complaint met three times during the time period relevant to this complaint: August 31, 2023; February 8, 2024; and April 4, 2024. Each of the IEPs resulting from these meetings include a measurable annual goal, titled “PT,” that addresses the student’s regular movement, mobility, and motor control for increased independence. The annual goal includes short-term objectives of this goal to transfer to/from the toilet; to address the student’s movement around the classroom, such as pulling up to a supported stance or tall kneeling; and the student using their power wheelchair to move through the school with distant supervision. Each IEP includes physical therapy consultation as a related service for 60 minutes in the first quarter of the school year and 30 minutes each subsequent quarter.

 

The complainant believes the student was not engaging in movement exercises throughout the day as contemplated by the IEP and that staff were too busy to properly support the student in these areas. The complainant was specifically concerned that the student did not use their gait trainer to walk across the stage at their graduation.

 

The district shared that regular movement was implemented throughout the student’s day and was also a focus of the student’s adaptive physical education program. In an interview with the department’s investigator, the physical therapist explained that at the beginning of the school year, they used their consultation time to take photos of the student doing specific exercises as well as using different pieces of equipment (a trike, gait trainer, a mobile stander, and both a power and a manual wheelchair). The physical therapist put the pictures into a binder to be used as a reference for the student’s teachers. The physical therapist also provided instruction to all staff working with the student on how to implement their exercises and properly utilize their equipment throughout the student’s day. The binder included a log sheet that staff used to document that the student was engaging in movement throughout the day. These logs demonstrate that the student practiced regular movement, including yoga on the floor, floor mobility stretches, using their trike, and using the gait trainer throughout the school day during the student’s classes. Additionally, the physical therapist was always available to assist staff as needed, as well as monitoring the student’s progress throughout the school year.

 

The complainant expressed disappointment that the student did not use their gait trainer to cross the stage during their graduation ceremony. However, the student’s IEP does not specifically mention the student using their gait trainer during graduation. District staff demonstrated that they attempted to practice use of the gait trainer on stage prior to graduation, but that the student was unable to safely navigate the stage using the device. Based on interviews and the documentation submitted, the district properly implemented the individualized education program of a student with a disability regarding physical therapy and regular movement.

 

Whether the district properly developed and implemented the student’s IEP to allow the student to participate in nonacademic and extracurricular activities

 

Local educational agencies must ensure that each student with a disability participates with nondisabled children in nonacademic and extracurricular activities, including meals, recess periods, and other activities, to the maximum extent appropriate given the student’s unique needs. Each student's IEP team must determine whether the student needs supplementary aids and services in order to participate in nonacademic and extracurricular activities. 34 CFR § 300.117.

 

The complainant raised concerns that despite the complainant’s requests, the student was not permitted to participate in cheer or pom pom, nor were they given the opportunity to participate in senior activities such as senior breakfast.

 

The district shared that when the complainant asked about the student participating in cheer or pom pom, they explained that these activities are not offered to any students in the district. The student did, in fact, participate in several school sponsored senior activities such as prom and graduation. District staff explained that senior breakfast was for students on the honor roll. Based on the system used by the district to determine which students qualified for honor roll, which included participation in certain honors level courses in addition to a high-grade point average, the student did not qualify and therefore was not invited to senior breakfast. The complainant raised concerns about the student not participating in other senior activities in the community, but these activities were not sponsored or organized by the district. The district did not improperly develop or implement the student’s IEP in a manner that impeded their participation in nonacademic and extracurricular activities.

 

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.