On January 14, 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 issue identified is whether the district, during the 2024-25 school year:
● Properly implemented the individualized education program (IEP) of a student with a disability regarding supplementary aids and services, specifically food logs, assistive technology, support for academic and independent work time, modified assignments, and exposure to regular education vocabulary;
● Properly developed and implemented the IEP to address the student’s behavioral needs; and
● Properly determined the student’s placement in the least restrictive environment.
Whether the district properly implemented the IEP of a student with a disability regarding supplementary aids and services, specifically food logs, assistive technology, support for academic and independent work time, modified assignments, and exposure to regular education vocabulary.
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 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 they must be informed of their specific responsibilities. IEPs must be implemented as written. (34 CFR § 300.323; Wis. Stat. § 115.787).
The subject of the complaint is a high school student who receives special education services with IEP goals in the areas of reading, language, written language and writing, independence, fitness, social skills, and self-advocacy skills. The student also receives related services in the areas of occupational and physical therapy and transportation. The student’s supplementary aids and services include, among others, “direct support during lunch for supervision and skill building; documentation and communication with home in regards to daily food and water intake as well as [student]'s use of communication at school; communication between the home and school team to monitor and coordinate [student]'s feeding needs to ensure consistent access to safe foods during the school day; direct support for independent work time and modified assignments to student’s academic level.”
The district started the year providing paper food logs to the parent, however, the parent did not feel the logs were thorough enough. District staff had been under the impression from the parent that staff were previously writing too much detail, so they started writing more succinctly. In January, the IEP team agreed to transition the food logs to an electronic format with more detail. The district provided evidence of the electronic food log that includes what the student was offered, what the student ate, and whether the student drank water. The district consistently implemented food logs and responded appropriately to the parent’s request to add additional details.
The student receives assistive technology support in the form of an Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) device. The district has two AAC devices and the student brings an additional device from home. The parent was concerned that district staff were not informed about how to use the device, however, the district provided evidence, and attendance lists of quarterly training about the student’s AAC device. These trainings were completed with staff who work with the student and occurred August 29, September 16, December 2, 2024, and February 21, 2025.
In addition, the student’s special education providers meet and provide feedback to special education assistants working with the student. While feedback happens formally three times per week, informal feedback happens more frequently. The district’s AAC specialist also provided additional coaching to staff working with the student December 16, 2024, and February 4, 2025. In addition, the district and parent have monthly meetings to address the student’s functional communication skills and AAC programming. These meetings occurred on September 19, October 29, November 19, December 17, 2024, January 7, and February 5, 2025.
With regard to updating academic vocabulary, one of the district’s staff members who co-teaches in the general education environment helps to communicate vocabulary terms that are to be added to the student’s AAC device. Staff logs academic vocabulary used by the student on the electronic communication log shared with the parent.
The parent shared that the student did not have access to their AAC device at school when the student’s personal device was stolen. The district updates the two district AAC devices and the student’s personal device on a monthly basis. Therefore, the student continued to have access to the district devices even when their personal device was stolen.
The parent is concerned the district has not provided the student with academic support and modified assignments. The district provided evidence of the student’s IEP-at-a-glance given to each of the student’s educators. This document is re-sent every semester, and printed copies are in the classroom for the student’s special education assistants along with an “IEP cheat sheet.” The district also provided evidence of the student’s modified work, specifically, task boxes used to instruct the student on various general education academic topics.
The district properly implemented the student’s IEP regarding supplementary aids and services with regard to food logs, assistive technology, support for academic and independent work time, modified assignments, and exposure to regular education vocabulary.
Whether the district properly developed and implemented the IEP to address the student’s behavioral needs.
School districts must provide each student with a disability FAPE in the least restrictive environment. School districts meet their obligation to provide FAPE to each student with a disability, in part, by developing and implementing each student's IEP as it is written. Staff responsible for implementing the student's IEP must be informed of their specific responsibilities. 34 CFR §300.323 and Wis. Stat. §115.787. 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) & 300.324(a).
The parent and district staff noticed an increase in the student’s physical behaviors in the fall of the 2024-25 school year. The parent felt the student’s behaviors were a result of staff not utilizing the student’s AAC device. District staff determined the antecedent of the student’s behavior occurred when the student received prompting to use their AAC device and when academic tasks in the general education classroom were presented to the student in front of peers. The district began to offer a separate quieter setting for when the student was dysregulated during academic tasks and added an additional physical education class to support the student’s regulation. The district further developed guidelines for academic environments so staff would respond to the student in a consistent manner. The student’s case manager observed staff interacting with the student to ensure the plan was being implemented appropriately and to provide coaching and feedback. The district noted the student’s physicality decreased as a result of the changes implemented. The district properly developed and implemented the IEP to address the student’s behavioral needs.
Whether the district properly determined the student’s placement in the least restrictive environment.
To the maximum extent appropriate, school districts must ensure students with disabilities are educated with their peers who do not have disabilities. Special classes, separate schooling, or other removals of students with disabilities from the regular educational environment should occur only if the nature or severity of a student's disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. 34 CFR § 300.114(a)(2). Under Wisconsin law, each student's IEP team determines the student's placement. Wis. Stat. § 115.78(2).
The parent felt the student did not have access to the general education environment due to the perception that staff had not been trained on the student’s AAC device. The district provided training as noted above, and continuously provided the student access to the AAC device. The parent shared concerns that the student did not receive instruction in the least restrictive environment when they were working in a separate setting. The district noted that when the student accesses the quieter environment, it is usually for brief increments of time (approximately five to fifteen minutes) and the student is typically able to return to the general education environment. Further, the team had attempted other options during physical incidents presented by the student such as walking and additional breaks, but these were not found to be effective in reducing the student’s physical behaviors. The district properly determined the student’s placement in the least restrictive environment.
For questions about this information, contact dpispeddata@dpi.wi.gov (608) 266-1781