On January 2, 2025, 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 this complaint. The identified issues are described below and pertain to the 2024-25 school year.
Whether the district properly implemented the individualized education program (IEP) of a student with a disability regarding provision of weekly services during school interruptions including short weeks, staff or student absences, etc., and whether the district properly developed and implemented the student’s IEP regarding specially designed instruction in math and accommodations for impact of frequent absences.
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 is reasonably calculated to enable the student to make appropriate progress 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 between the student’s functioning and that of their peers 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 staff must be informed of their specific responsibilities. IEPs must be implemented as written. (34 CFR § 300.323; Wis. Stat. § 115.787).
Districts should consider the impact of frequent absences on the student's progress and performance and determine how to ensure the student can continue to progress and meet the annual goals in their IEP. Decisions about whether, when, and how to provide make-up services must be individualized and based on a variety of factors including the student's ongoing needs and goals and the effect of the absences on student progress. Whether an interruption in special education services constitutes a denial of FAPE is an individual determination that must be made on a case-by-case basis. Letter to Clarke, 107 LRP 13115 (OSEP 2007). If the student is absent from school for a prolonged period of time, or there is a pattern of repeated short-term absence from school for reasons associated with the student’s disability, it may be appropriate for a district to reconvene the IEP team to discuss the student’s current IEP to determine whether it is necessary to modify the student’s current program or placement. Letter to Balkman, 23 LRP 3417 (OSEP 1995).
The subject of the complaint is a seventh-grade student who receives special education services under the disability of Other Health Impairment. The student has IEP goals in the areas of math problem solving, math computation, executive functioning, and self-advocacy. The student receives 150 minutes per week of specially designed instruction for math, 50 minutes per week of specially designed instruction for executive functioning skills (organization, self-advocacy, work completion) and 20 minutes per month of occupational therapy for “collaborative consultation” to address organization and executive functioning.
The student’s IEP provides the following supplementary aids and services: visual or task lists to support work completion, breakdown of multi-step projects, preferential seating, redirections, foreshadowing of schedule changes, breaks, check-in for emotional well-being and academic support, a daily assignment sheet, a writing checklist, think aloud during work time, multiplication chart and/or calculator, anchor charts, self-regulation strategies to decrease anxiety, alternate passing time, modified assignments, a list of class materials, late arrivals for medical “flare ups,” support during transition upon arrival, resource room access for breaks, and support during “flare ups”.
The parent contends the district has not provided the student all of their specially designed instruction. To ensure staff understand their responsibilities under student IEPs, the district hand delivers “IEP-at-a glance” documents to the student’s teachers at the beginning of the school year and reviews the information with the teachers to allow for any clarifications. District staff also provide teachers an updated IEP-at-a-glance when an IEP is revised. Evidence provided by district staff demonstrates that the district provided the student’s teachers this information at the beginning of the 2024-25 school year and a revised version on January 15, 2025, after the student’s review and revise meeting.
District staff maintain service logs of the minutes of specially designed instruction provided to the student. As of February 3, 2025, the student has had 29 excused absences during the 2024-25 school year. In response to the student’s absences, the district provided the student make-up minutes of specially designed instruction on November 1, 8, and 15; and on December 6 and 13, 2024. The district had scheduled make-up sessions; however, the student missed those due to additional absences. Despite the absences, the student has made significant progress. Both of the student’s math goals have been met based on progress reports provided by the district from October 23, 2024, and January 10, 2025. The student has demonstrated progress toward meeting their other two IEP goals as well.
In order to address the student’s inconsistent attendance and additional concerns expressed by the student’s parent, the IEP team reconvened on January 8, 2025. The team discussed the impact of the student’s absences on continued progress, and raised the possibility of the student receiving extended school year services (ESY). At the time of the meeting the team determined that the student’s performance data did not support a finding that the student requires ESY. The team plans to reconvene later in the school year to review more current student information to determine whether the student requires ESY. By providing additional opportunities for the student to make up sessions of specially designed instruction the student missed when absent, the district properly implemented the IEP regarding provision of weekly services during school interruptions including short weeks, staff or student absences, and properly developed and implemented the student’s IEP regarding specially designed instruction in math and accommodations for impact of frequent absences.
Whether the district properly provided the student’s parents prior written notice of changes to the student’s IEP.
Prior written notice must be given to the parents of a student with a disability a reasonable time before the school district 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 district, an explanation of why the district 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 must provide proper prior written notice by providing the student’s 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 parent asserts the district failed to provide prior written notice regarding the student’s missed IEP service minutes during the student’s absences. The parent alleges that IEP minutes were not made up as a result of the student’s absences amount to a change to the IEP. Likewise, the parent raised concerns that the IEP does not account for partial school days and field trips.
The student’s IEP includes specially designed instruction described in a number of minutes to be provided per week. The district contends minutes are written to occur on a weekly basis to account for the school schedule and allow for flexibility in scheduling through the week. District staff maintain service logs documenting the student’s IEP minutes. The district provided the student’s IEP minutes when the student was in attendance and provided additional instructional sessions to account for missed minutes. The fact that the student was frequently absent does not mean the IEP was changed. The district did not neglect to provide the student’s parent with prior written notice.
Whether the district properly implemented the student’s IEP during a student health incident on December 16, 2024.
On December 16, 2024, the student needed a break from their intervention class after overhearing a “scuffle” in the gym through a staff member’s radio. The student was provided time in the resource room where two staff members were present. After providing the student some time, staff checked back in with the student to see if they were ready to return to class. The student indicated they were not ready and remained in the resource room. The student’s case manager then checked in with the student and when the student shared they were overwhelmed, the student was provided additional time in the resource room. While in the resource room, the student was provided check-ins as well as a folder documentation of strategies the student could choose to engage in to help them regain their regulation and be ready to return to class. Strategies included coping skills such as mindfulness and breathing techniques. The student joined their next class, participated in a class warm up and left to go to the office after approximately five minutes due to not feeling well. The student eventually went home for the day. The student’s parent was notified the same day via email that the student had shared they were feeling “overwhelmed.” The parent then asked for additional details about the situation which district staff provided via email on December 18, 2024.
The parent has previously shared with district staff that the student has a medical condition that results in the student having “flare ups.” The parent describes “flares” as times when the student’s school performance notably declines, the student experiences an increase in irrational fears, fixates on intrusive thoughts and cleanliness, leaves the classroom more frequently, experiences separation anxiety when leaving the house, and has a reduced ability to cope with everyday stressors. The student’s parent felt the school should have known the incident on December 16, 2024, was the beginning of a flare and notified the parent accordingly.
The district held an IEP team meeting to review and revise the IEP on January 8, 2025. The IEP team wished to address the parent’s concerns about the student’s “flares” and consider additional accommodations to be added to the IEP. The parent’s concerns and team discussion are reflected in the IEP developed at that meeting, and the IEP includes a list of signs for staff to look for. The parent requested the following accommodations be added to the student’s IEP: late arrival, an individual to help the student get into the school if needed, the ability for the student to go to the resource room and stay there when needed, notification to the student’s teachers regarding the student’s medical condition and a modified workload, redirection for behaviors, de-escalation techniques for anxiety, and flexibility to change protocols based on need. The parent further requested the district alter their attendance policy, notify the parent of any cases of strep or mycoplasma pneumonia, and “be willing to add to the list without an IEP meeting.”
The district included all of the parent’s requests to support the student’s flares in the IEP, with a few exceptions. Specifically, the district did not agree to change their attendance policy. Instead, the IEP team added a statement to the student’s supplementary aids and services allowing the student to arrive late. The district properly implemented the student’s IEP during the student’s health incident.
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