On September 30, 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 in the complaint are described below and pertain to the period of time beginning September 30, 2023.
Whether the district properly responded to a parent’s request for a special education evaluation.
The purpose of a special education evaluation is to determine whether the student is a child with a disability in need of special education and the nature and extent of the student's educational needs. Upon receiving a referral for an evaluation, the school district must appoint an individualized education program (IEP) team, which includes the student’s parent. Within 15 business days of the district’s receipt of the referral, the IEP team, including the student's parent, must conduct a review of existing data to determine the need for additional information to complete the evaluation, including information from assessment or other evaluation activities. 34 CFR §§ 300.300-300.301; Wis. Stat. § 115.777(3)(e).
The student who is the subject of this complaint attends a private school located within the district’s geographical boundaries. Prior to the time period relevant to this complaint, the student was evaluated by their resident school district and identified as a student with a disability under the disability area of Other Health Impairment (OHI) based chronic health conditions. The IEP team at the resident district determined that the impairment could adversely affect the student’s behavior, social/emotional development, and adaptive functioning.
The parent contacted the district named in this complaint, which is the district where the private school is located, in June 2024 to request an evaluation. The student’s parent explained they had new information to be considered about the student’s behavior from their private school and new medical information including a diagnosis of an autism spectrum disorder. The student’s parent also wondered whether the student may be eligible to receive occupational therapy. District staff informed the parent that they were willing and ready to start the evaluation process but mentioned that proceeding with the evaluation in summer presented some challenges due to the student not being at school for staff to complete observations. However, based on the parent’s preference to proceed in advance of the new school year, district staff helped the parent complete a written referral on July 15, 2024. District staff sent the parent a written notice of the district’s receipt of the referral on July 18, 2024.
On July 29 and 30, 2024, IEP team members including the student’s parent discussed existing data regarding the student and determined the team needed additional information about the student’s academic achievement, cognitive learning, communication, independence/self-determination, and social and emotional learning. The team determined they needed to gather additional information through a combination of formal assessments, interviews, observations, and a language sample analysis. The parent agreed with the assessment plan and the district provided the parent the notice of the need to conduct additional assessments on August 1, 2024, which was within 15 business days of receiving the referral. The parent provided consent to conduct the assessments on that same day.
In their complaint, the student’s parent raised a concern that during the process of initiating the evaluation, the district sent them another student’s personally identifiable information. A district staff member who has responsibility for coordinating evaluations of parentally placed private school students confirmed that they sent the parent a link to a district created online form used to collect additional info given the unique circumstances of these evaluations. When the staff member sent the link to the form, they inadvertently neglected to remove the name of a different student. The staff person quickly realized the error and took prompt action to correct it. This accidental error does not render the district’s response to the evaluation request inappropriate. The district properly responded to the parent’s request for a special education evaluation.
Whether the district properly conducted a special education evaluation.
The district must complete all assessment activities and hold an IEP team meeting to determine the student's eligibility within 60 days of the district's receipt of the parent's consent to conduct assessments or of sending notification to the parent that no additional assessments are needed. 34 CFR §§ 300.304-300.306; Wis. Stat. § 115.78(3)(a). The district must conduct a comprehensive evaluation in all suspected areas of disability using a variety of assessment tools and strategies, including consideration of information provided by the student’s parent. All assessments must be used for the purposes for which they are valid and reliable, administered by trained and knowledgeable personnel, and in accordance with any instruction provided by the producer of the assessment material. Wis. Stat. § 115.782(2).
IEP teams must consider information provided by the student’s parents, including medical information. However, IEP teams cannot determine eligibility for special education solely from medical information. While medical conditions and special education disability categories often use similar terms and language, they are authorized under different rules, have different purposes, and different components to their required elements. Medical professionals make decisions about medical conditions. IEP teams make decisions about special education eligibility. Special Education and the Physician, WDPI, July 2014. In order for an IEP team to determine a student has a disability under federal special education law, the IEP team must find that the student meets impairment criteria for at least one disability area and that, as a result, the student requires special education. 34 CFR § 300.308.
District staff began conducting assessment activities including reviewing existing materials and conducting interviews. Multiple district staff including a speech and language pathologist, occupational therapist, school psychologist, and diagnostic teacher conducted observations of the student at the private school. Given that the observations happened early in the school year, the private school teachers and staff were just getting to know the student when the activities were completed. The student’s teachers completed behavioral rating scales.
The school psychologist began to recognize there were noticeable differences in the results of different assessment tools, including behavioral rating scales, completed by the student’s family compared to school staff. Given these differing results and in order to ensure the team had sufficient information to make an eligibility determination, the school psychologist contacted the student’s parent on September 10, 2024, and expressed interest in completing some additional assessment activities. District staff felt the additional information was necessary to ensure the team had sufficient information to apply disability area criteria with validity. The parent signed a revised consent form to allow the district to conduct the additional assessments on September 10, 2024.
The IEP team met to discuss the assessment results and conduct the evaluation on September 23, 2024. The student’s parent attended the meeting and the district’s diagnostic teacher, school psychologist, speech and language pathologist, and occupational therapist. The team also included staff from the private school, a representative from the student’s resident school district, the student’s private applied behavioral analysis provider, and the student’s case manager from the county.
The team reviewed and discussed information gathered during the assessment activities and medical information provided by the parent. The student’s parent reported that the student continued to display dysregulation and complicated behaviors at home, including aggressive and impulsive behavior. The team reviewed information gathered from reports and interviews with the student’s private school teachers and providers. The team reviewed previous evaluations, including the previous district’s special education evaluation. The team reviewed the information gathered through additional assessment activities as part of the reevaluation, including multiple observations, parent interviews, and standardized assessments. The student demonstrated average cognition, and communication skills generally within normal limits for the student’s age and grade. A few areas of concern related to behavioral needs appeared to be slightly elevated given the totality of the information. The team acknowledged that some measurements produced marked differences between parent and school staff results but explained that additional assessment information reinforced that the student was generally functioning as is typical for students of their age.
The team reviewed criteria for the disability area of Speech and Language Impairment, and determined the student’s oral language abilities were within normal limits, and did not meet criteria under that area. The district reviewed the criteria for the area of OHI and determined that while the student had several health conditions that were chronic, evidence did not support a finding that the student demonstrated limited strength, vitality, or alertness, nor did the information substantiate the conditions causing any educationally relevant concerns or impact on the student’s educational performance. The team found that the student did not meet criteria under OHI. Finally, the team reviewed the educational eligibility criteria under the area of Autism and determined that despite the student’s medical diagnosis of an autism spectrum disorder, when the team considered data from all of the sources, they could not find evidence to support the student meeting the criteria for educational autism. The student was able to sustain reciprocal interactions with peers and adults, transition and shift activities throughout the school day, and demonstrated “right-sized” emotional reactions to problems as they arose. The student did not display evidence of restrictive, repetitive, or maladaptive behaviors in the school setting. The mild differences in some prosocial behaviors the student demonstrated were not outside of what was typical for students of the same age. The team determined the student did not meet criteria for educational Autism. The IEP team concluded the meeting by determining the student did not qualify for special education and recommended the student’s continued participation in educational experiences with other children to continue to promote their academic and functional growth.
The student’s parent raised concerns about the reliability of information gathered from in class observations given how early in the school year the observations occurred. The parent also questioned the timing of behavior rating scales completed by the student’s teacher, concerned that the teacher could not have had enough contact with the student for the information to be accurate. The student’s parent shared information from the instructions for some of the assessment materials that consistently recommend staff complete the rating scale after having considerable contact with the student. However, to account for this and to ensure the information used in the evaluation was as complete as possible, the district took particular care to ensure they had multiple sources of information and that the district staff involved in the evaluation were highly trained and experienced in the use of the assessment techniques. The district agrees that it would have been better had the student’s teacher known the student for a longer time for the purposes of some of the assessment activities but notes the assessment materials provide that guidance as recommendations, not as requirements. There were some items that the student’s classroom teacher was not able to answer, but this does not render the information they were able to provide invalid. The IEP team had access to the information gathered from the student’s previous teacher by the resident school district during their evaluation and determined it did not conflict with their other sources of data. It was not unreasonable for the team to conclude they had sufficient information to make a determination. The district properly conducted the student’s special education evaluation.
Whether the district properly allowed the parent a meaningful opportunity to participate in the meeting of the student’s IEP team.
School districts must take steps to ensure that one or both parents of a child with a disability are present at each IEP team meeting, including evaluation meetings, or are afforded the opportunity to participate. School districts must notify parents of IEP team meetings early enough to ensure they will have an opportunity to attend and ensure the meeting is scheduled for a mutually agreeable time and place. 34 CFR § 300.322(a)(1). School districts may conduct IEP team meetings using alternative methods of participation, such as video or telephone conferencing. 34 CFR § 300.328.
In the complaint, the student’s parent indicated they were not offered the ability to meet in-person for the IEP team meeting. The district explained to the department that in their experience, holding virtual IEP team meetings works best for teams of parentally placed private school students as they accommodate the participation of many people from multiple organizations who might have difficulty finding a common time to meet in person. However, the district explained it will arrange for an in-person IEP team meeting any time a parent expresses a preference to do so. District staff indicated they spoke to the parent regarding the arrangements for the meeting, including that it would be conducted virtually, on September 10, 2024, and sent the parent a written meeting invitation that same day. The meeting was scheduled for September 23, 2024. The parent reported to department staff that on the day of the meeting, they experienced difficulty with the virtual platform, particularly the microphone, and had to use their phone to call in to the meeting. District staff told the department that they were unaware that the student’s parent had trouble with the virtual platform, and had the parent mentioned it, staff would have arranged to switch the meeting to a different virtual platform. District staff indicated that the parent was present for the entire meeting and participated in discussions at various times during the meeting. The district properly allowed the parent a meaningful opportunity to participate in the meeting of the student’s IEP team.
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