On January 15, 2025, the Department of Public Instruction (department) received a complaint under state and federal special education law from #### (complainant) against the #### (district). The issues raised in the complaint are outlined below. This is the department’s decision regarding that complaint. This investigation focused on the 2024-25 school year. The student transferred into the district at the beginning of the school year. The district followed the individualized education program (IEP) from the previous school district until they held an IEP team meeting on October 1, 2024. During the times relevant to this complaint, there were additional IEP team meetings on December 20, 2024, and January 31, 2025.
Whether the district properly shortened the school day of a student with a disability.
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). It is only appropriate to shorten the length of the school day for a student with a disability if the student’s IEP team determines a shortened day is required to address the student’s unique disability-related needs. This should be a very rare occurrence. Before deciding to shorten the student’s day, the IEP team must consider if there are other ways to meet the student’s needs. When a student’s school day is shortened, the student’s IEP must include an explanation of why the student’s disability-related needs require a shortened day, and a plan for the student’s return to school for a full day, including a plan to meet more frequently to review student data and determine whether the student is able to return to school full-time. The student should return to a full school day as soon as they are able, and under most circumstances, a shortened school day should be in place for a limited amount of time. Shortened school days may not be used to manage student behavior or as a means of discipline. A school district may not require a student to "earn" back the return to a longer or full school day by demonstrating good behavior. 34 CFR § 300.116; DPI Special Education Information Update Bulletin 24.01. Sending the student home, shortening the student’s day, or other types of removals may result in a denial of or the failure to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE).
The student was placed on a shortened school day following the December 20, 2024, IEP team meeting and returned to a full day after the January 31, 2025, IEP team meeting. The student was on a shortened day from January 6, 2025, through February 4, 2025. District staff indicated that the student was placed on a shortened day due to their stamina. They explained that the student engaged in unsafe behaviors when their stamina was low.
The December 2024 IEP does not document what steps the district would take to help the student return to a full day, a plan to meet more often, what data would be reviewed to see if the student was prepared to return for a full day, or alternative placements within the school rather than shortening the day. The December 2024 IEP does state that if the student’s “behaviors do not improve and/or … [the student] shows more physical aggression towards teachers, staff, or peers, and if [the student] … refuses to complete and/or participate in academics … an alternative learning environment may be discussed at the next IEP team meeting.” Additionally, the student’s functional behavioral assessment (FBA) developed the day before the December 2024 IEP team meeting states, “the setting where the target behavior most frequently and consistently is right away in the morning … [t]his behavior will continue throughout the school day until parents are contacted.” It adds that instances of behavior occur throughout the day, “mostly in the morning … also more likely to occur during the morning hours when there are more academic demands placed on” the student. Furthermore, the parent, who is not the complainant, indicated that the conversation at the IEP team meeting focused on the student’s behavior and concerns regarding staff being in danger rather than the student’s stamina.
There is no documentation of the IEP team discussing a plan to return the student to a full day. While the IEP and staff indicate the student was placed on a shortened day due to stamina, other information in the IEP, as well as information in the FBA, and the parent’s recollection of the IEP team discussion highlights that the student’s behavior was a factor in placing the student on a shortened day. For the foregoing reasons, the district did not properly shorten the school day of a student with a disability.
Whether the district properly developed the IEP regarding positive behavior supports and followed special education discipline procedures.
School districts must provide FAPE to each student with a disability by developing an IEP that meets the student's unique needs and by implementing special education and related services in accordance with the student's IEP. 34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) & 300.324. In the case of a student whose behavior impedes the student's learning or that of others, districts must consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports and other strategies to address that behavior. 34 CFR § 300.324 (a)(2)(i). If a student displays inappropriate behavior despite having an IEP that includes behavioral supports, this may indicate that the behavioral supports in the IEP are not being appropriately implemented or the behavioral supports in the IEP are not appropriate for the student. It is critical that services and supports are designed to support the needs of children with disabilities and ensure FAPE are appropriately implemented to avoid an overreliance on or misuse of exclusionary discipline in response to a child’s behavior. In these situations, the IEP team would need to meet to review whether the supports and services are being implemented or whether the supports and services are effective and revise the IEP accordingly. The IEP team should also consider whether a FBA is necessary to better understand the function of the student's behavior. Questions and Answers: Addressing the Needs of Children with Disabilities and IDEA's Discipline Provisions, U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, July 19, 2022.
The student, who is in 6th grade, began attending the district at the beginning of the current school year. The district, complainant, and parent agree that the district continually adjusted the student’s behavioral supports in an effort to better address the student’s needs. The district properly developed the IEP regarding positive behavior supports.
The complainant’s concern related to special education discipline procedures arose because the complainant believes the district improperly shortened the student’s day due to their behavior which is addressed above. The district properly followed special education discipline procedures.
Whether the district properly determined the student’s least restrictive environment.
School districts must provide each student with a disability with a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment. School districts meet their obligation to provide FAPE to each student with a disability, in part, by developing an IEP based on the student’s unique, disability-related needs that is reasonably calculated to enable the student to make progress appropriate in light of the student’s circumstances, documenting that program in the IEP, and implementing the program as articulated in the IEP. For most students, the IEP must be designed to allow the student to progress from grade to grade, but if that is not possible, the IEP should be appropriately ambitious in light of the student’s circumstances. 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 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).
To the maximum extent appropriate, school districts must ensure students with disabilities are educated with children who are nondisabled. Special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment should be used 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). In providing or arranging for the provision of nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities, including meals, recess periods, and other services and activities, each public agency must ensure that each child with a disability participates with nondisabled children in these services and activities to the maximum extent appropriate to the needs of that child. 34 CFR § 300.117. A change of placement for a student must take place in an IEP team meeting. 34 CFR § 300.116 Wis. Stats. §§ 115.78(2)(c); 115.79. In Wisconsin, placements of students with disabilities must be determined by IEP teams in conformity with least restrictive environment (LRE) requirements. LRE requires that students with disabilities receive their education in the regular classroom environment to the maximum extent appropriate or, to the extent that such placement is not appropriate, in an environment with the least possible amount of segregation from the students' nondisabled peers and community. 34 CFR §§ 300.114 - 300.116.
During the current school year, the district changed the student’s placement multiple times. From the beginning of the school year through early October 2025 the student was in a special education setting with other students. From October through winter break the student was isolated in a workroom with a 1:1 aide in the morning and returned to the special education setting with other students in the afternoon. From January 6, 2025, through February 4, 2025, the student was on a shortened day, isolated in a workroom with a 1:1 aide when the student was in school. Beginning February 5, 2025, the student remains isolated in the same workroom throughout the day with opportunities to interact with peers at lunch, recess, and art class. However, except for the learning environment during the shortened day, the student’s environment is not clearly documented in their IEPs. While the parent indicated they were aware of these placement changes, the district staff indicated that these changes were often communicated through daily communication logs and emails and not made through an IEP team meeting. While the district shared that the parent suggested a more restrictive environment, there is no indication that the IEP team discussed least restrictive environment options based on the student’s needs. The district did not properly change the student’s placement and determine the student’s least restrictive environment.
Whether the district properly improperly utilized seclusion and/or physical restraint with the student.
State law prohibits the use of seclusion and physical restraint by school staff unless a student's behavior presents a clear, present, and imminent risk to the physical safety of the student or others and is the least restrictive intervention feasible. Seclusion means the involuntary confinement of a student, apart from other students, in a room or area from which the student is physically prevented from leaving. Wis. Stats. §§ 118.305(2); 118.305(3). Physical restraint means a restriction that immobilizes or reduces the ability of a student to freely move their torso, arms, legs, or head. If physical restraint is used, the degree of force and the duration of the physical restraint may not exceed the degree and duration that are reasonable and necessary to resolve the clear, present, and imminent risk to the physical safety of the student or others. Physical restraint may only be used if there are no medical contraindications to its use. Wis. Stats. §§ 118.305(3). After each instance of seclusion or restraint, all individuals involved must meet to discuss the events preceding, during, and following the use of the seclusion or physical restraint. They must also discuss how to prevent the need for seclusion or physical restraint, including factors that may have contributed to the escalation of the student's behaviors; alternatives to physical restraint, such as de-escalation techniques and possible interventions, and other strategies that the school principal or designee determines are appropriate. Wis. Stat. § 118.305(4)(a). After each instance of seclusion or restraint, no later than one business day after the incident, the district must notify the student's parent of the incident and, within three business days of the incident, send a written report to the student's parent containing the student's name, the date, time, and duration of the use of seclusion or physical restraint, a description of the incident, including a description of the actions of the pupil before, during, and after the incident, and the names and titles of the covered individuals and any law enforcement officers present during the incident. Wis. Stat. § 118.305(4). This report must be retained by the school principal, or his or her designee, and should be sent to the student’s parent by first class mail, electronic transmission, or hand delivered. The second time that seclusion or physical restraint is used on a student with a disability within the same school year, the student's IEP team is required to convene as soon as possible after the incident but no later than ten school days after the incident. The IEP team must review the IEP, and as needed, revise it to ensure it includes appropriate positive behavioral interventions and supports and other strategies to address the behavior of concern based on a FBA of that behavior. Wis. Stat. § 118.305(5).
At times relevant to the complaint, the student was secluded six times including on October 18, October 23 (twice), November 21, December 18, and December 19, 2024. The district did not hold a debrief meeting following either incident on October 23, 2024, or the incident on November 21, 2024. Only one staff member briefly met with the parent following the December 18, 2024, incident to brainstorm solutions and following the December 19, 2024, incident a single staff member and a police officer met with the parent. The district did not properly hold a meeting with all individuals involved to discuss the events preceding, during, and following the use of the seclusion. Also, there was no IEP team meeting held following the second seclusion incident which occurred on October 23, 2024. Furthermore, the district sent the seclusion report home with the student, rather than sending it through the mail, electronic transmission, or hand-delivered by the principal or their designee.
Additionally, there was one incident of restraint on November 21, 2024. While the restraint was completed by properly trained staff, the district did not hold a debrief meeting afterwards. For the foregoing reasons, the district did not properly utilize seclusion and/or physical restraint with the student.
Within 30 days of the date of this decision, the district must reconvene the student’s IEP team to determine the student’s location for specially designed instruction and when they are removed from the regular education environment. The IEP must document the placement options considered, and if applicable, why a more restrictive placement is needed. The district must submit a copy of the revised IEP to the department within 10 days of the IEP team meeting.
Additionally, within 30 days of the date of this decision, the district must develop and submit to the department for approval a corrective action plan (CAP). This plan must include a plan to properly document and train on all requirements when shortening the school day of a student with a disability. The plan must include procedures and training for determining when a change of placement occurs for a student requiring an IEP team meeting, including that the student is educated in the LRE, for all relevant staff, including building administrators. Finally, the CAP must include a plan for training all staff on the proper procedures that must be followed whenever a student is secluded and/or restrained, including holding a debrief meeting with all involved staff, conducting an IEP team meeting following the second incident, and properly delivering the report to parent(s).
All noncompliance identified above must be corrected as soon as possible but in no case, more than one year from the date of this decision. 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