IDEA Complaint Decision 25-037

Complaints 25-037 & 25-038

On March 10, 2025 (form dated March 7, 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 this complaint. The students who are the subject of this complaint are siblings. The issues identified are whether the district, beginning March 10, 2024:

● Properly developed the individualized education program (IEP) of one student with a disability (Student A) regarding their annual reading goal;

● Properly implemented Student A’s IEP regarding making up missed physical education classes, and

● Properly developed and implemented the IEP of a second student with a disability (Student B) regarding mathematics.

Whether the district properly developed Student A’s IEP regarding their annual reading goal.

School districts meet their obligation to provide a free appropriate public education to each student with a disability, in part, by developing a program based on the student’s unique, disability-related needs that is 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. The goals must be designed so that gaps between the achievement of the student and peers in academic or functional performance are narrowed or closed during the period of time covered by 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. The IEP must be accessible to staff responsible for implementing the student’s IEP, and they must be informed of their specific responsibilities. IEPs must be implemented as written. (34 CFR § 300.323; Wis. Stat. § 115.787).

Student A is in tenth grade and receives special education services to address multiple disability related needs. The student’s IEP team met to conduct a re-evaluation and IEP meeting on April 8, 2024. As part of the reevaluation, the team noted the student moved from reading level I to a level K (a 2.4 grade level equivalent) on the Benchmark Assessment System (BAS) and had increased one level each semester beginning in 7th grade through 9th grade. Student A’s IEP included the following reading goal, “By April 2025, [Student A] will read functional texts (i.e. menus, directions, maps, signs) that include sight words at [their] current level with 80% sight word accuracy and will demonstrate [their] comprehension of the text by retelling/summarizing the information in 90% of opportunities.” Student A’s baseline included “Currently, [Student A] can read and summarize functional materials at [their] reading level with 80% accuracy…3rd grade sight word reading is at 73% and 4th grade sight word reading is at 10% correct.” The annual reading goal also included the following short-term objectives:

By June 2024, [Student A] will read functional texts (i.e. menus, directions, maps, signs) that include sight words at their current level with 75% sight word (third grade) (30% in 4th grade) accuracy and will demonstrate their comprehension of the text by retelling/summarizing the information in 80% of opportunities.

By October 2024, [Student A] will read functional texts (i.e. menus, directions, maps, signs) that include sight words at their current level with 80% sight word (third grade) (50% in 4th grade) accuracy and will demonstrate their comprehension of the text by retelling/summarizing the information in 90% of opportunities.

By January, 2025 [Student A] will read functional texts (i.e. menus, directions, maps, signs) that include sight words at their current level with 85% sight word (third grade) (70% in 4th grade) accuracy and will demonstrate their comprehension of the text by retelling/summarizing the information in 90% of opportunities.

By April, 2025 [Student A] will read functional texts (i.e. menus, directions, maps, signs) that include sight words at their current level with 90% sight word (third grade) (80% in 4th grade) accuracy and will demonstrate their comprehension of the text by retelling/summarizing the information in 90% of opportunities.

The IEP team reconvened on March 19, 2025. Though Student A was noted to still be reading at a 2.4 grade equivalent level based on the BAS assessment, the student’s progress on sight words had increased from 73% to 98% accuracy on third grade level words and from 10% to 80% accuracy on fourth grade level sight words. The student further met their goal to read functional texts, such as menus, with 80% accuracy. The team discussed that Student A’s scores sometimes “fluctuate as much as 10% according to [the student’s] mood or energy level.” The team noted that when the student does not practice sight words daily, they struggle with automaticity and sometimes have to “backtrack” to regain their progress.

With regard to Student A’s reading comprehension, the student maintained their progress at 80% to 90% from mid-2nd grade level to beginning 3rd grade level, with auditory comprehension being more of a strength.

On March 19, 2025, Student A’s IEP team updated their reading goal to “By March 2026, after locating an unfamiliar word while reading an academic passage at her reading level, [Student A] will independently use decoding strategies to decode the word accurately in 70% of opportunities” with the following short term objectives:

By June 2025, after locating an unfamiliar word while reading an academic passage at their reading level, [Student A] will independently use decoding strategies to decode the word accurately in 45% of opportunities.

By November 2025, after locating an unfamiliar word while reading an academic passage at their reading level, [Student A] will independently use decoding strategies to decode the word accurately in 50% of opportunities.

By January 2026, after locating an unfamiliar word while reading an academic passage at their reading level, [Student A] will independently use decoding strategies to decode the word accurately in 60% of opportunities.

Throughout the period of time applicable to this complaint, the district provided Student A with 150 minutes per week of specially designed instruction in the area of reading in accordance with their IEP. The district provided documentation demonstrating that Student A continued to make progress toward their annual reading goals. The district properly developed Student A’s annual IEP goal for reading.

Whether the district properly implemented the IEP of Student A regarding making up missed physical education (PE) classes.

The student missed four PE classes during the first semester of the 2024-25 school year due to outside therapy appointments and a miscommunication between district staff. Student A’s IEP developed on April 8, 2024, indicated, as a note on the placement page, that the student would make up four or more missed PE classes. Student A made up two PE classes on May 1, 2024, and May 15, 2024. The district asserts the student made up a third class session, but was not able to provide documentation of when it happened. The student was not able to make up the fourth class before school ended for summer. The district did not properly implement Student A’s IEP regarding making up missed PE classes. Given the unique circumstances presented, no student specific corrective action is required. Within 20 days of the date of this decision, the district is required to submit to the department a plan to ensure staff are aware of their obligation to ensure IEPs are fully and properly implemented.

Whether the district properly developed and implemented the IEP of Student B regarding mathematics.

Student B is in tenth grade and receives special education services under the disability criteria of Other Health Impaired. According to Student B’s most recent special education evaluation, their scores on a district-wide assessment in the area of math were at the 10th and 5th percentiles (fall 2022 and spring 2023 respectively) and at the 28th percentile on the spring 2022 state-wide assessment. The student was administered the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, Fourth Edition as part of the evaluation. The student’s score was in the very low to low average range on the math subtests. Given the evaluation results, the IEP team determined Student B needed to improve their operational math problem solving skills.

Student B’s present levels of performance at the February 13, 2024, IEP meeting demonstrated the student was performing at a 4th grade level in math. The student had been struggling in their Algebra class during the first semester. As a result, the IEP team determined the student would continue to receive exposure to the core Algebra curriculum, with a “blended” approach focusing on skills to address Student B’s math goal and pre-algebra skills such as basic functions, fractions, order of operations, factors and multiples and patterns. Student B continued to receive exposure to the Algebra curriculum and completed grade level math with modifications (e.g., use of a calculator, fewer problems, simplified equations, use of a graphic organizer, etc.). Student B received 120 minutes per week of specially designed instruction to address their math goal.

The IEP team reconvened February 4, 2025, and based on Student B’s progress, determined they met their annual goal in math. The IEP team revised the math goal accordingly, and the Student’s April 7, 2025, progress report demonstrated the student made progress on their current IEP math goal from calculating tip and tax rate during a purchase from 30 percent to 40 percent accuracy. The district developed the student’s math goal based on data about the student and revised the goal periodically according to the student’s progress. The district properly developed and implemented the IEP of Student B regarding mathematics.

 

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.