On November 6, 2024 (form dated October 17, 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 identified issues are described below and pertain to the period of time beginning November 6, 2023.
Whether the district properly responded to an allegation of bullying regarding a student with a disability.
School districts have an obligation to ensure that a student with a disability who is the target of bullying behavior continues to receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in accordance with the student’s individualized education program (IEP). As part of its appropriate response to bullying, the district should convene a student’s IEP team to determine whether, due to the effects of bullying, a student’s needs have changed such that the IEP is no longer designed to provide FAPE. If the IEP is no longer designed to provide FAPE to a student, the IEP team must determine the extent of additional or different special education, or related services are needed to address the student’s individual needs and revise the IEP accordingly. 34 CFR § 300.323, Wis. Stat. § 115.787; Wis. Stat. § 115.78(2)(c); Wis. Stats. § 118.46.
The student who is the subject of this complaint was initially identified as a student with a disability on June 3, 2024. The student’s parent reported to district staff that the student was bullied on the school bus in April 2024. Given the timing of the alleged bullying, the district did not have an obligation under special education law to ensure the student continued to receive a FAPE. However, the district appropriately followed its bullying policy by investigating and substantiating the incident and offered to move the student to a different bus. When the district found the student eligible for special education, the IEP team included provisions to help the student should bullying occur in the future. The district properly responded to allegations of bullying.
Whether the district properly developed and implemented the student’s IEP to allow the student to participate in nonacademic and extracurricular activities and provision of class notes.
School districts meet their obligation to provide a FAPE to each student with a disability, in part, by developing an IEP, documenting that program clearly in the IEP, and implementing the program as written. Each IEP must include a statement of the child's present level of academic achievement and functional performance, including how the child's disability affects the child's involvement and progress in the general curriculum. 34 CFR §§ 300.320-300.324; Wis. Stat. § 115.78(2). Each student's IEP must include a statement of the special education, related services, and supplementary aids and services to be provided to the student, 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).
Extracurricular Activities.
Districts must ensure that each student with a disability participates with nondisabled peers in extracurricular and non-curricular activities to the maximum extent appropriate given the needs of that child. Each student's IEP team must determine whether the student needs supplementary aids and services in order to participate. 34 CFR § 300.117.
In the complaint, the student’s parent expressed concerns that district staff had not previously mentioned that the IEP team could include accommodations for extracurricular activities within the student’s IEP. The student joined the cheerleading team during the summer of 2024. The cheerleading coach sought advice from the athletic director and the director of special education regarding needs of the student. The director of special education offered the coach some suggestions, such as offering extra time to reset and to not correct her in front of the team, but the IEP team did not include those suggestions in the student’s IEP when the IEP team met on July 16, 2024.
The parent also raised concerns during an IEP team meeting held on September 30, 2024. The parent was concerned that the coach made the student sit out at a game and do extra exercises after as a consequence for forgetting to bring part of their uniform to an event. The parent was also concerned the student was not allowed to participate in a stunt for one of the routines as the student had missed some practices. During the department’s investigation the cheerleading coach explained the student was subject to the same dress codes and attendance requirements as the rest of the team. These requirements were spelled out in the cheerleading team handbook. When the student forgot part of their uniform during an event, the coach followed team policy and told the student to sit out the game. The student missed more than six practices due to conflicting meetings with county support providers. Usually, students were removed from the team for missing that many practices, but the coach allowed the student to remain on the team. However, the coach stressed the importance of regularly attending practice, especially given the complexity of some of the team’s stunts. Because the student missed practices, the student was not allowed to participate in a stunt to ensure the student’s safety and that of their teammates.
At the IEP meeting held on November 20, 2024, the IEP team specifically addressed the parent’s concerns about cheerleading. Under the program modifications and supports for school personnel section, the IEP stated that prior to participation in extracurricular activities the student would meet with the coach to set expectations for the season, and that staff would inform the student’s parent of any consequences related to not attending a practice. However, the IEP team did not properly develop the student’s IEP prior to the student joining the cheerleading team, particularly when the director of special education and the coach discussed supports for the student in July. This should have been done in the context of an IEP team meeting and then properly documented these supports during the July IEP team meeting. Since the IEP team addressed the parent’s concerns at the November IEP team meeting and documented the supports in the IEP, no further corrective action is required.
Class notes.
In their complaint, the student’s parent indicated that the student’s need for class notes was mentioned several times during the student’s summer IEP team meetings but was not specifically added to the student’s IEP until the IEP team meeting in September. The parent asserted the accommodation should have been offered much earlier. The June and July 2024 IEPs discuss the student’s needs and the plans for the upcoming school year. There is no mention of class notes as a supplementary aid or service, nor is there any mention of a parent concern regarding the need for class notes in these IEPs.
The district’s communication log with the parent included an entry from September 23, 2024, regarding class notes. A district staff member told the department’s interviewer this concern was raised by the student. When the IEP team met on September 30, 2024, the parent expressed their desire to include the provision of notes to the student, and the IEP team added it to the IEP as a supplementary aid and service. Despite the parent’s concern that provision of notes was not included in the initial IEPs for the student, the IEP team responded appropriately as soon as the concern was raised to the IEP team. The district properly developed and implemented the IEP to allow the provision of class notes.
Whether the district properly implemented the student’s IEP regarding support from a paraprofessional.
Special education paraprofessionals work under the direct supervision of licensed teachers. A paraprofessional’s responsibilities may include supporting the licensed teacher's lesson plan, providing technical assistance to the teacher, and helping with classroom control or management. Staff responsible for implementing the student’s IEP must be informed of their specific responsibilities. 34 CFR § 300.323; Wis. Stat. § 115.787.
The IEP developed on June 19, 2024, includes full time paraprofessional support for the student and provided for additional passing time between classes. At the IEP team meeting on September 30, 2024, the team decided to remove paraprofessional support during passing time but included a statement in the IEP that if the student had more than one instance of being tardy, the paraprofessional support would be put back into place. Staff said the parent wanted this provision added to prevent a pattern of tardies.
On October 2, 2024, the student was marked tardy for third hour. The student became very upset that they were marked tardy. Staff spoke with the student’s parent and decided to extend the student’s additional class time passing to fifteen minutes before the student would be marked tardy. According to staff, this minor change has worked, and tardiness has not been an issue. The district properly implemented the student’s IEP regarding paraprofessional support during passing time.
The parent raised an additional concern that on one occasion, the student was allowed to check out of school alone without paraprofessional support to meet a respite worker before school ended. The parent felt this created an issue for the student’s safety if they were left alone outside. The student’s communication log reflects a call from the case manager to the parent and the respite worker on October 28, 2024, in which they discussed the student signing out early at 3:00 p.m. to meet a county respite worker. They determined the student should not leave prior to 3:35 p.m. when the bell rang even if the respite worker arrived at school early. Despite this plan, the student checked out early at 3:00 p.m. When the student went to the office to sign out accompanied by the paraprofessional, the respite worker was waiting in their vehicle outside the school. The paraprofessional checked to ensure the respite worker was there and walked the student as far as the door before watching the student get in the county worker’s vehicle. The district properly implemented the student’s IEP regarding support from the paraprofessional in this instance.
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