IDEA Complaint Decision 25-021

On January 29, 2025, the Department of Public Instruction (department) received a complaint under state and federal special education law from ####

(complainant) against the #### (district). This is the department’s decision regarding that complaint. The issue is whether the district, beginning January 29, 2024, properly implemented the student’s individualized education program (IEP) regarding specialized transportation.

 

School districts meet their obligation to provide a free appropriate public education to each student with a disability, in part, by 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. Specialized transportation is considered a related service. The student’s IEP team determines, based on the student's unique, disability-related needs, whether the student needs specialized transportation to benefit from their special education and, if so, how specialized transportation services will be provided. 34 CFR § 300.107. Each student's IEP must include a statement of the special education, related services, and supplementary aids and services to be provided to the child, including the projected date for the beginning of the services and the anticipated duration of the services. All services must be clearly described 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). In general, school districts in Wisconsin are not required to provide student transportation outside of school district boundaries “unless it is described in the IEP or other circumstances apply.” DPI Special Education Information Bulletin 18.01. Among other required participants, each student’s IEP team must include a local educational agency (LEA) representative who has the knowledge and authority to commit district resources. Wis Stats § 115.787 (1m)(d).

 

The parents of the student who is the subject of this complaint share physical custody of the student. The student lives half of their time with each parent. One parent lives in the district and the student attends their assigned school based on the location of that residence. The other parent, who is the complainant, lives outside the district’s boundaries. The student’s IEP developed in November 2023 states that the student requires specialized transportation. However, the student’s parents transported the student during the 2023-24 school year. At the complainant’s request, the district provided them a “parent transportation contract” dated September 10, 2024, for reimbursement for their personal expense of providing the student’s specialized transportation. However, the total amount reimbursed was not based on mileage but on the district’s set rate. This contract was prorated due to the complainant having 50% custody of the student.

 

During the student’s annual IEP team meeting on November 20, 2024, the complainant emphasized that while their home was outside district boundaries, the related service of specialized transportation in the IEP should specify that the student be transported to and from the complainant’s home. District staff on the IEP team, including the LEA representative, felt that they could not finalize the language in the IEP at the IEP team meeting. The staff indicated they had to consult with the district’s transportation department regarding district policy on transporting a student beyond district boundaries.

 

Following the November 2024 IEP team meeting, the complainant received an email from staff indicating that they had received clarification on what can be written in the IEP, indicating “we can say to and from home two times per day.” The finalized November 2024 IEP provided to the complainant states under related services that the student “requires transportation to and from home and school so that … [they] can access … [their] learning environment.” It also states that due to the student’s “increased potential to elope and … [their] fluctuating skills/abilities … [the student] requires transportation to and from home and school that does not involve a transfer to a different vehicle at the district transfer site.”

 

The complainant requested that the student be picked up and dropped off at their home as it was written in the IEP. However, on December 13 and December 19, 2024, different district staff members informed the complainant that they would not provide transportation outside of the district boundary. Staff explained that the district would provide transportation for the student if the complainant transported the student to a location within the district boundary.

 

District staff explained during this investigation that the term “district transfer site” is a specific location within the district where several buses converge before and after school and students then switch buses to continue their trip. The student’s IEP indicates, and district staff reiterated during this investigation, that based on the student’s needs, it would not be safe for the student to change vehicles at this district transfer site. Based on interviews, the language regarding the transfer sites was added to the student’s IEP outside of the IEP team meeting and after members of the IEP team consulted with the district's transportation department.

 

The district also cited a Pennsylvania court’s reasoning in Allegheny SD v. Gregory, 25 LRP 3984, Dec. 24, 1996 in support of its position. While the department agrees that case law from other jurisdictions can be informative and persuasive, its conclusions are not binding law in Wisconsin. In that case, the state commonwealth court found that the district was not required to provide the student transportation from the residence of their parent who lived outside of the school district, because the transportation was not necessary to address the student’s unique, disability related needs. Additionally, multiple cases that cite to this Pennsylvania case indicate that transportation was not a related service in the students’ IEPs, which is not the case in the present situation (See Middletown Township Board of Education, 109 LRP 69509, October 15, 2009; South Hunterdon Regional Board of Education, 110 LRP 26414, February 25, 2010; Mundo Verde Public Charter School v. District of Columbia, 123 LRP 30417, September 28, 2023).

 

Wisconsin school districts usually are not obligated to transport students to/from a parent’s home when that parent lives outside the district’s boundaries. However, if the student’s IEP team has determined the student requires specialized transportation as a result of their disability, the district must provide it. In this case, the student’s IEPs clearly demonstrate that based upon the student’s unique disability related needs, they require specialized transportation as a related service. This decision should not be overruled by a district’s transportation department or its general policy.

 

The district did not properly include staff that could make a commitment regarding district resources on the student’s November 2024 IEP team. The staff insisted that the description of specialized transportation in the IEP could not be finalized until a member of the IEP team consulted with staff not included on the IEP team, including the district’s transportation department. District staff were aware the complainant’s residence is located outside the district. In a clarifying email after the IEP team meeting, staff indicated to the complainant that “we can say to and from home two times per day.”

 

Since the IEP team made the determination that the student requires specialized transportation to both houses, the district must provide it. For the foregoing reasons, the district did not properly implement the student’s IEP regarding specialized transportation.

Within 10 days of the date of this decision, the district must begin providing transportation for the student to and from the parent’s home as written in the student’s IEP. The district must submit documentation supporting that it is providing this transportation to the department within 30 days of the date of this decision.

 

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.