On March 10, 2025, and March 18, 2025, the Department of Public Instruction (department) received complaints under state and federal special education law from #### and #### (complainants) against the #### (district). The complaints raise concerns regarding #### (student A) and #### (student B). The issues are whether the district, beginning August 1, 2024, properly implemented the students’ Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) regarding Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) and interpreter services; including interpreting for extra-curricular activities; provided special education services using properly licensed staff; and properly provided interpreters for participation in IEP meetings. This is the department’s decision regarding these complaints.
Whether the district properly implemented the student’s IEP regarding DHH and interpreter services, including interpreting for extra-curricular activities.
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 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. Districts must ensure that each student with a disability participates with nondisabled peers in extracurricular and non-curricular activities to the maximum extent appropriate given the needs of that child. Each student's IEP team must determine whether the student needs supplementary aids and services in order to participate. 34 CFR § 300.117.
Student A and student B began attending the district during the 2024-25 school year. There were IEP team meetings for each student on August 23, 2024, October 29, 2024, and March 6, 2025. Both student’s IEPs include services related to DHH and interpreters. Both IEPs include direct instruction and support from a DHH teacher for different subjects. Both students’ IEPs also include “educational interpreting ASL interpreting” for the “duration of school day.”
The district acknowledges that it has struggled to consistently employ American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters, and as such neither of the students’ IEPs were fully implemented during the school day and for extracurricular activities. Additionally, the district was without a DHH teacher from January 16, 2025, through January 22, 2025, which resulted in two days of missed services. The district did not properly implement either student A’s or student B’s IEPs regarding DHH and interpreter services, including interpreting for extra-curricular activities.
Whether the district provided special education services using properly licensed staff
Each school board 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. Stats § 118.19. Educational interpreters require specific DPI licensure to provide ASL interpretation for students. DPI Special Education Information Bulletin 21.02. School districts meet their responsibility for implementing IEPs, partly by ensuring that services are provided by properly licensed and qualified staff.
The complainants raised concerns that during the second semester of the 2024-25 school year, the students’ DHH teacher, who does not have a department issued license for educational interpreting, has been providing interpreter services for both student A and student B. During the time period of this investigation, the students had one DHH teacher from the beginning of the school year until January 16, 2025, and a different DHH teacher beginning January 22, 2025, who remains their DHH teacher at this time. While the DHH teacher during the first semester had both a DHH teacher and an educational interpreter license, the DHH teacher who began working with the students on January 22, 2025, does not have an educational interpreter license. District staff indicated that this DHH teacher was hired as a DHH teacher and not as an educational interpreter. The district and staff agree that interpreting is not part of this person’s role, and that they have never been asked to interpret by district staff. The district properly provided special education instruction using properly licensed staff.
Whether the district properly provided interpreters for participation in IEP meetings
School districts must take steps to ensure that the parent of a student with a disability is present at each IEP team meeting or is afforded the opportunity to participate, including notifying the parent of the meetings early enough to ensure that there will be an opportunity to attend, and scheduling the meeting at a mutually agreed time and place. Prior to an IEP team meeting, a district must provide notice to the parent of the purpose, time, and location of the IEP team meeting, including a list of who will be in attendance at the IEP team meeting. 34 CFR § 300.322. The IDEA requires districts to take "whatever action is necessary to ensure that the parent understands the proceedings of the IEP team meeting, including arranging for an interpreter for parents with deafness or whose native language is other than English." 34 CFR 300.322 (e). When educational interpreters are participants in an IEP meeting, the best practice is to have another educational interpreter provide the actual interpretation service during the IEP meeting so the student's educational interpreter can participate in the meeting without distraction. DPI Special Education Information Bulletin 21.02.
The complainants raised concern that at some of the students’ IEP team meetings, their interpreters were asked to participate while also interpreting for the students. While it is best practice to have separate interpreters for IEP team meetings, it is not required under state and federal special education law. The district properly provided interpreters for the students’ participation in IEP meetings.
As corrective action, the district is reconvening both students’ IEP teams to determine whether compensatory services are necessary due to the lack of consistent educational interpreter services. This discussion should be documented in the IEP and the district must submit the revised IEPs to the department within 10 days of the IEP team meeting.
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