IDEA Complaint Decision 25-032

On March 3, 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 are whether the district, during the 2024-25 school year, properly implemented the student’s individualized education program (IEP) regarding breaks and properly responded to allegations of bullying.

 

Properly implemented the student’s IEP regarding breaks.

 

School districts must provide each student with a disability with a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE). School districts meet their obligation to provide a FAPE to each student with a disability, in part, by implementing each student's IEP. 34 CFR §§300.323(c)(2) & 300.324. 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 district must ensure that the student's IEP is accessible to each regular education teacher, special education teacher, related services provider, and any other service provider who is responsible for its implementation and that they are informed of their specific responsibilities. 34 CFR § 300.323(d).

 

The student’s IEP in effect at the beginning of the 2024-25 school year was developed on April 4, 2024. The IEP specified staff must provide the student three five-minute movement breaks per day prior to seated work or instruction and emotional regulation breaks when the student showed signs of emotional dysregulation such as blurting or noncompliance. Structured sensory breaks were also identified as an accommodation in the student’s behavior intervention plan (BIP). The district provided school staff assigned to work with the student information about the breaks specified in the student’s IEP and discussed with staff how to meet the student’s behavior related needs. The student’s IEP team conducted an annual review of the student’s IEP on February 25, 2025. The new IEP required provision of structured breaks for self-regulation when the student showed signs of dysregulation such as making noises, walking around the room during instruction, and leaving the room. The student was to be permitted unlimited breaks as requested through the use of a break card or other nonverbal cue. These supports were reflected in the student’s revised BIP. The implementation date of the revised IEP was March 11, 2025.

 

On February 27, 2025, the student reported to their parent that they had taken a break during one of their classes and that the teacher had told them that as a consequence they would need to spend an equivalent amount of time with their special education teacher. The student reported that similar interactions had occurred during this class on at least six previous occasions. The evidence reviewed by the department shows that the student’s regular education teachers and the student’s special education teacher had discussed the student’s need for breaks and determined that the best approach was to notify the special education teacher of any incident and that the special education teacher would then meet with the student to discuss the incident in whatever environment the student was in when the teacher was available. These meetings did not involve a minute-by-minute accounting of break time and were not punitive in nature. It is understandable that the student found discussions of their conduct uncomfortable and could have interpreted these discussions as his teachers’ disapproval of taking a break. The district has directed staff to stop the practice. However, district staff did not tell the student they were not allowed to take a break and did not stop them from taking a break on February 27, 2025, or at any other time during the 2024-25 school year, nor does it appear that the student refrained from taking breaks. The district appropriately implemented the student’s IEP in effect from the beginning of the 2024-25 school year through February 27, 2025, with respect to breaks.

 

Properly responded to allegations of bullying.

 

School districts have an obligation to ensure a student with a disability who is the target of bullying behavior continues to receive a FAPE in accordance with their IEP. The school should, as part of its appropriate response to the bullying, convene the student's IEP team to determine whether, as a result of the effects of the bullying, the student's needs have changed such that the IEP is no longer designed to provide meaningful educational benefit. OSEP Dear Colleague Letter on Bullying, August 20, 2013; 34 CFR § 300.323; Wis. Stat. §§ 115.787 and 115.78(2)(c).

 

The parent contacted the district regarding the concerns expressed by the student. The parent believed the teacher’s actions were bullying and contrary to the district’s non-discrimination and anti-harassment policies. The district conducted an informal investigation and, at the parent’s request, opened a formal investigation into the matter. As of this date, the formal investigation has not been concluded. The district has offered to convene the student’s IEP to discuss whether the student’s needs have changed and if the IEP needs to be revised. The district properly responded to allegations of bullying.

 

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.