On March 14, 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 complaint pertains to the 2024-25 school year and the issues are described below.
Whether the district properly implemented the individualized education program (IEP) of a student with a disability.
School districts must provide each student with a disability 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.
The complainant alleges that the district did not properly provide the student the supplementary aids and services described as writing accommodations in their IEP, such as speech-to-text and having a scribe when writing more than two sentences. Interviews with district staff demonstrate they were aware of their responsibility to implement the services, and the services were implemented as written. The district properly implemented the student’s IEP.
Whether the district properly conducted IEP team meetings.
Parents may request an IEP team meeting at any time. A school district should grant any reasonable parent request for an IEP team meeting. A district must respond to a parent’s request for an IEP team meeting by scheduling the IEP team meeting at a mutually agreed on time and place or must provide written notice to the parent including an explanation of why the district has determined a meeting is not needed. 34 CFR §300.503.
The student’s IEP team must include the student’s parents, at least one regular education teacher of the child, at least one special education teacher of the child, a representative of the local education agency who is qualified to provide or supervise the provision of specially designed instruction and is knowledgeable about the general education curriculum and the availability of resources in the local education agency, and someone who can interpret evaluation results, who may already be a member of the team. 34 CFR §300.321.
The student’s parent alleges that the district has not held the IEP team meetings they have requested and that IEP team members have not attended meetings. Review of records submitted by the district confirms that during the 2024-25 school year, the IEP team has convened on October 29, 2024, November 13, 2024, December 5, 2024, February 12, 2025, February 19, 2025, March 5, 2025, and March 17, 2025. All required IEP team members were present for each meeting. There is no evidence that additional IEP team meetings were requested and not held. The only time that an IEP team meeting was rescheduled with less than 24 hours’ notice was at the request of the parent. The district properly conducted IEP team meetings.
Whether the district properly followed special education disciplinary requirements.
After a student has been subjected to 10 days of disciplinary removal in a school year, during subsequent removals, the district must provide each student services to the extent necessary to enable them to continue to participate appropriately in the general curriculum, although in another setting, and to progress toward achieving the student’s IEP goals. 34 CFR § 530(d)(1)(i).
A disciplinary change of placement occurs when the student's removal is for more than 10 consecutive school days or when a series of removals constitutes a pattern because the removals total more than 10 cumulative school days in a school year, the behavior is substantially similar to the behavior in previous incidents, and additional factors such as the length of each removal, the total amount of time the student has been removed, and the proximity of the removals to one another. 34 CFR §300.536(a). Under Wisconsin law, a student may be suspended for up to five school days for conduct that violates a district's code of student conduct. Within 10 school days of any decision to change the placement of a student with a disability because of a violation of a code of student conduct, the district must conduct a manifestation determination. 34 CFR § 300.536.
The student who is the subject of this complaint received a two-day out-of-school suspension for an incident that occurred on December 17, 2024. The student served the suspension on December 20, 2024, and January 6, 2025. The student’s family appealed the suspension, and the incident was reduced to a lower-level offense. As a result of the appeal, the district amended the student’s records by removing the days of suspension.
The student received a one-day out-of-school suspension for an incident that occurred on January 30, 2025. The suspension was served on January 31, 2025.
In both out-of-school suspension incidents, the parent was notified by phone or email of the suspension on the same day as the incident. The student has also served two class periods of in-school suspension during the 2024-25 school year.
In total the student has been suspended for approximately 3.2 days during the 2024-25 school year which does not constitute a disciplinary educational change in placement. The district was not required to provide the student services during days of removal. The district properly followed special education disciplinary requirements.
Whether the district improperly disclosed special education records.
The IDEA regulations require a school district to obtain written consent to disclose personally identifiable information related to special education. 34 CFR §300.622. The definition of records and the provisions regarding the disclosure of records are made with reference to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974. 34 CFR 99.30(a). Prior written consent is not required to release information to other school officials, including teachers, within the school district who the school district has determined to have a legitimate educational interest. 34 CFR § 99.31(a)(1)(A). In order to qualify as a school official, a “contractor, consultant, volunteer, or other party” must perform an institutional service or function for which the district would otherwise use employees, be under direct control of the district with respect to the use and maintenance of education records and be subject to other requirements regarding use and redisclosure of information from education records. 34 CFR § 99.31 (a)(1)(i)(B).
The parent alleges that information discussed in the student’s IEP team meetings was improperly shared with staff members who were not a part of the IEP team. The department’s investigation, which included interviews with multiple staff members involved with the student, did not find evidence that the district improperly shared student information. Documents submitted by the district indicate that when the parent requested that student information be shared with outside individuals, the district requested an official release of information be signed by the parent before taking action. When the parent did not respond with a signed release, the district did not share the student records. The district did not improperly disclose special education records.
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