On January 23, 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 that complaint. The issues identified are whether the district, during the 2024-25 school year:
● Properly implemented the student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) regarding supplementary aids and services (visual schedule, assistive technology, sensory diet for regulation, adult support, adaptive seating, parent communication), and specially designed instruction in reading and fine motor skills; and
● Ensured all staff responsible for implementing the student’s IEP were properly trained, licensed, and informed of their responsibilities.
Whether the district properly implemented the student’s IEP.
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. IEPs must be implemented as written. 34 CFR § 300.323; Wis. Stat. § 115.787.
The student who is the subject of this complaint attends elementary school in the district and uses a family-provided tablet as an augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) device to communicate. Three of the student’s five annual goals (functional communication, functional math, and functional reading) incorporate skills related to using an AAC device. The student participates in a curriculum aligned with alternative achievement standards.
The IEP in effect at the beginning of the 2024-25 school year was developed on February 21, 2024. The IEP called for an adult to be available throughout the day to monitor the student’s behaviors, sensory needs, progress/performance during academics, transitions, lunch, recess, art, music, gym, field trips, and special activities. The IEP described the use of adult support during bathroom breaks to accompany the student and wait outside the door until the student finished using the bathroom independently.
On November 14, 2024, the student ran away during a bathroom break and was missing for a few minutes. During the incident, the student, a peer, and two paraprofessionals were in the hallway on the way to the bathroom. The paraprofessional assigned to the student allowed the student to walk several paces ahead to encourage their independence. The paraprofessional briefly assisted the other paraprofessional when the peer began hitting the hallway wall. Simultaneously, the student followed another teacher into that teacher’s classroom. The paraprofessional lost sight of the student but believed the student was in the bathroom. District staff soon began to search for the student. District staff provided varied estimates for the amount of time the student was missing before the student independently returned back to the special education classroom. The paraprofessional’s decision to allow the student to walk ahead resulted in a brief break in the student’s adult supervision, which the district promptly addressed by having staff stay closer to the student in the hallway. The department concludes that the district properly provided an available adult as described in the IEP, and following this brief incident adjusted practices to better meet the student’s needs after the November incident.
The IEP in effect called for the special education teacher to reach out to parents every eight weeks with an update on academics and how the student is progressing toward goals and objectives. In prior school years, the student’s former teacher’s practice was to provide the student’s parent daily communication. For the current school year, the special education teacher and parent agreed to weekly communication. In addition to the weekly communication, the special education teacher timely informed the parent of important information such as the November elopement incident. The district properly implemented the student’s IEP regarding parent communication.
On December 4, 2025, the parent accompanied the student into the school and observed the classroom for almost two hours. The student’s classroom had a substitute special education teacher that had not previously worked with the student. The parent had several implementation concerns based on observations that day.
The student’s IEP called for adapted seating provided throughout the day. The special factors section of the IEP explained that the student had been observed sitting in a chair inappropriately by tilting back and had at times fallen out of the chair. The parent stated that they did not see appropriate adaptive seating in the classroom during the December observation. District staff reported that the classroom’s alternative seating options included a rolling wooden box seat and bean bag chairs. However, the student preferred using regular classroom chairs or sitting on the floor. District staff who worked with the student prior to this school year confirmed that the student used to rock in classroom chairs in previous years, but staff had not witnessed the student rocking or falling this school year. The seating options the district provided addressed the safety concerns described in the student’s IEP.
The assistive technology needs section of the student’s IEP explained that as of February 21, 2024, the student used two assistive technology devices: their personal tablet for AAC purposes and a school-provided tablet for visual schedules and self-regulation. The special factors section of the IEP listed several positive behavioral strategies and supports, including use of the AAC device for the student to tell staff their wants and needs, and with staff modeling use of the AAC device. The program summary of the IEP in effect at the beginning of the 2024-25 school year provided for two types of visual supports: a visual schedule, daily to build support independence and independent transitions, and a mini schedule (i.e., first/then visuals) with a sequence of expected tasks to complete daily when engaged in small group learning activities. During the December observation, the parent did not observe implementation of the school-provided tablet for the visual schedule, nor first/then visuals. The parent observed staff providing the student verbal descriptions of expected tasks to complete. The parent observed the student using the communication tablet once during the observation but did not witness staff prompting or modeling with the device. District staff confirmed that for the 2024-25 school year, they decided to switch to providing the student a physical visual schedule that would be attached to the personal AAC device so the student would not require two separate electronic devices at all times. The physical visual schedule resembles the electronic display of last year’s schedule. District staff reported no concerns with the student’s understanding of the physical visual schedule. The district provided access to the AAC device, and the visual schedule as described in the IEP’s program summary, but the program summary was not aligned with the description of the student’s assistive technology needs in the special factors section of the IEP. Because of this inconsistency, there was a lack of a common understanding of the services necessary to support the student’s communication needs.
The day of the parent’s December observation, the student became agitated while the substitute teacher provided specially designed reading instruction that had been pre-planned by the absent special education teacher. The substitute teacher noted that when the student became dysregulated, the parent intervened in the lesson. The parent did not believe the lesson was appropriate for the student’s level, causing the student to become frustrated. The substitute teacher gave the student a break after five minutes of instruction, but did not resume instruction following the break. There was also one occasion in February where a different substitute teacher did not provide the student’s scheduled 15 minutes of daily specially designed reading instruction as the student was dysregulated. The district did not properly provide all of the specially designed instruction in reading on these two occasions.
The parent reviewed the student’s schedule for the date of the December observation and did not see the student’s 15 minutes of daily fine motor and visual skills instruction included. However, the instruction was included, described as the students “writing lesson plan” rather than “fine and visual motor skills.” Staff confirmed they provided the activities in the lesson plan. The district properly provided specially designed instruction in fine motor skills.
The assistive technology needs section of the student’s IEP also described a sensory diet for regulation (including but not limited to a steam roller, heavy movement/work breaks, sensory calming breaks, swing, and trampoline). The program summary called for 3-10 minutes with the sensory diet when dysregulation behaviors started to escalate (i.e., falling to the ground, screaming, yelling, etc.). The special education teacher and occupational therapist collaborated on selecting and making available objects the student prefers, such as a stress ball, bin of fidget toys, a trampoline, and sensory swing. District staff reported using breaks as part of implementing the sensory diet. The parent believed there was too much break time the day of the December observation. The department concludes discussion at an IEP team meeting is the most appropriate way to address the parent’s concern about the student’s daily schedule. The district properly provided sensory diet options to implement the student’s IEP.
District staff and the parent held a facilitated IEP team meeting to develop the student’s annual IEP on February 28, 2025. The IEP team discussed the student’s progress and determined the student met all five annual goals (functional communication, functional math, functional reading, self-regulation skills, and functional motor skills). The IEP team developed new annual goals and a new program summary, including use of fidget toys when the student shows signs of dysregulation. The district will adjust the student’s schedule to permit staff more time to finish all required minutes of specially designed instruction when breaks are provided. The parent and the district have agreed upon a new communication plan. The new IEP provides for a communication checklist to be provided weekly.
Whether the district ensured all staff responsible for implementing the student’s IEP were properly trained, licensed, and informed of their responsibilities.
School districts must ensure that all staff responsible for implementing an IEP, including substitutes, regular education teachers, special education teachers, related services providers, and any other service providers must be informed of their specific responsibilities. 34 CFR § 300.323(d). Districts must ensure every teacher, aide, or other professional staff holds a valid certificate, license, or permit issued by the department for the position for which the individual is employed.
Special education services must be provided by properly licensed special education teachers. 34 CFR § 300.156; Wis. Stat. § 118.19; Wis. Admin. Code § PI 34. School districts may employ an individual as a short-term substitute teacher employed to teach any subject at any grade level, including special education, for no more than 45 consecutive days in the same teaching assignment. A long-term substitute must be a licensed teacher or a licensed substitute teacher and be employed only in the subject and grade level in which the teacher is licensed. A substitute teacher, long or short-term, must implement the IEP as written. School districts must ensure substitute teachers have access to the students’ IEPs. This is typically done by providing them with an IEP at a glance or providing them with the entire IEP. Either form is acceptable.
All staff working with the student were appropriately licensed. Most staff assigned to work with the student at the beginning of the 2024-25 school year, with the exception of the special education teacher, had worked with the student for several years. During the 2024-25 school year the student has had substitute teachers due to illness and planned professional development. The school’s program support teacher has been able to fill in most of these days, along with other licensed substitute teachers. On a typical day, three paraprofessionals work with the student. The assignments for paraprofessionals have changed since the beginning of the school year. Substitute staff reported that the first days with the student can be challenging, but that the student warms up over time. The special education teacher provided substitute teachers with guidance, including information about the students, lesson plans, and access to IEPs. The student’s new IEP provides for staff training (to review the student’s IEP, language strategies, and AAC devices usage) twice per year, when new staff are onboarded, or when the IEP is updated. The district properly ensured all staff responsible for implementing the student’s IEP were properly trained, licensed, and informed of their responsibilities.
Corrective Action
The IEP developed on February 28, 2024 resolved prior inconsistencies between the assistive technology special factor section of the IEP and the program summary. The district provided compensatory specially designed reading instruction the week of March 10, 2025. Given the district’s revised practices, IEP revision, the student’s substantial progress on annual goals, and compensatory services, no further corrective action is required.
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