On April 7, 2025, the Department of Public Instruction (department) received a complaint under state and federal special education law from #### (parents) against the #### (district). This is the department’s decision regarding that complaint. The issues are whether the district, during the specified dates, properly implemented the individualized education program (IEP) of a student with a disability regarding several provisions which are each discussed separately below.
In the summer of 2024, the district conducted an initial evaluation and identified the student as having a disability, and the IEP team developed the student’s initial IEP on August 13, 2024. The IEP was projected to be implemented on September 3, 2024. The student’s parents provided their consent for initial placement and services on September 30, 2024, and the district began implementing the student’s IEP. The student’s IEP team met to review and revise the student’s IEP on October 10, 2024, and the revised IEP was implemented on October 25, 2024. On January 15, 2025, the parents proposed changes to the student’s IEP and the district responded that an IEP team meeting would be necessary to make the changes. The parents elected to postpone any IEP team meeting until the resolution of IDEA Complaint 25-006 (decision issued March 10, 2025). The student’s parents withdrew the child from the district on February 18, 2025.
Local education agencies meet their obligation to provide a free appropriate public education to each student with a disability, in part, by developing and implementing each student’s IEP. The 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 stated 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). IEPs must be implemented by school staff as written, and staff responsible for implementing the student's IEP must be informed of their specific responsibilities. 34 CFR § 300.323 and Wis. Stat. § 115.787.
Whether the district properly implemented the student’s IEP regarding monthly submissions of information and thoughts by IEP team members as a check in to whether an IEP team meeting was necessary beginning April 7, 2024, through February 18, 2025.
The following statement was included in the present levels section of the student’s October 2024 IEP, “IEP team members will submit information/thoughts on a monthly basis as a check-in and it will be determined by IEP team members if we need to hold a monthly meeting.” The parents assert they only received two monthly submissions, and the submissions were not inclusive of all IEP team members. On November 15, 2024, the district sent the parents an email containing information regarding the student’s classroom experiences for their art teacher, the special education teacher, and the classroom teacher. On December 19, 2024, the district sent the parents an email containing information regarding the student’s classroom experiences for the guidance counselor, the art teacher, the special education teacher, and the music teacher. No monthly communication was sent in January or February. The district did not appropriately implement the student’s IEP with respect to monthly communication.
Within 30 days of the date of this decision the district shall provide to the parents information from all IEP team members for the months of November, December, January, and February.
Whether the district properly implemented the student’s IEP regarding reminding the student “not to touch other people without permission,” and that the student “should not be allowed to hug staff members that don’t have a longstanding relationship” with them beginning April 7, 2024, through February 18, 2025.
The following statement was included in the student’s August and October IEPs, “[The student] should be reminded not to touch other people without permission. [The student] is an excessive hugger and this is sensory seeking behavior. [The student] is seeking deep pressure and should be encouraged to use her Lycra band ([the student] calls it a stretchy band) or weighted cape in place of unnecessarily hugging strangers.” The parents are concerned that they observed the student hugging school staff, and that the student reported frequently hugging school staff and other students. School staff report that the student did infrequently hug them and other students and when this occurred, they reminded the student not to touch others without permission and directed the student to a sensory aid. The district properly addressed the student’s hugging behavior by providing the reminders specified in the IEP.
Whether the district properly implemented the student’s IEP regarding administration of medication to the student beginning October 25, 2024, through February 18, 2025.
The following statement was included in the student’s October IEP, “Hydroxyzine will be given whenever staff feel [the student] is struggling in any capacity. It may be given 2 times per day as needed. Parents have been giving it to [the student] in the morning before coming to school. If staff feels [the student] is frustrated, overwhelmed, or anxious, then they need to give Hydroxyzine and document it in the Google Doc. [The student] does not like taking this medication and requires a treat to take it with. Parents will provide some food options for [the student].” The parents assert the student was constantly struggling in school between October 25, 2024, and November 14, 2024, and that the district did not provide the student with medication as specified in the IEP. District staff report that they did not feel that the student was struggling during this time period, and the use of the medication was not necessary. After November 14, 2024, the parents provided a written order from the student’s physician to administer the medication at school once per day with an additional dose as needed. The student’s records indicate the daily dose was provided on all days the student was in attendance between November 14, 2024, and the point at which the student was withdrawn from school. As-needed doses were provided on November 21, December 12, and December 13, 2024, and on January 14 and January 16, 2025. Two of these doses were provided at the parent’s request and one at the student’s request. In using their own best judgment as to when the student was struggling and required medication, district staff properly implemented the provisions of the IEP with respect to the administration of medication.
Whether the district properly implemented the student’s IEP regarding provision of sensory tools beginning April 7, 2024, through February 18, 2025.
The student’s October 2024 IEP states, “The student will have access to sensory tools at all times. [The student] will be given the choice of choosing which tool [they] would like to use and when. If [the student] would like to switch to a sensory tool, [they] can use a visual card to indicate that.” The parents provided a “kit” of sensory tools for the student to use at school, rather than using items provided by school so they could ensure the student used them consistently at home and to allow the parents to maintain them. The student also used a swing and chair provided by the school as sensory tools. On November 14, 2024, the student reported to the parents that she was told they were not allowed to bring one of the sensory tools to school. The parents were concerned school staff had discussed the use of the sensory tool with the student, causing the student to become upset and feeling they had done something wrong. Parents contacted the school principal who responded that he would speak with staff about discussing sensory tools with the student. Though the student was upset by the teacher’s direction, the student has access to all the other sensory tools in her kit. The district properly implemented the student’s IEP with respect to the provision of sensory tools.
Whether the district properly implemented the student’s IEP regarding consultation with the student’s private occupational therapist beginning October 25, 2024, through February 18, 2025.
The student’s October 2024 IEP specified, as a related service, consultation with school staff and the student’s clinical occupational therapist one time per month. The IEP team added the consultation at the parents’ request. District staff consulted with the student’s private occupational therapist via video conference on November 25, 2024. Multiple attempts to schedule a consultation in December 2024 were unsuccessful due to the winter holidays. Consultation occurred via email on January 22 and 23, 2025, and again via email on February 19 and 25, 2025. Though the December consultation did not occur, the district and the private therapist made reasonable attempts to schedule a time to meet. The district properly implemented the students IEP with respect to consultation with the private therapist.
Whether the district properly implemented the student’s IEP regarding use of a shared online document to communicate between school staff and the student’s parents beginning April 7, 2024, through February 18, 2025.
The student’s August 2024 IEP contained the following statement in the present levels section: “School staff will communicate and engage with parents and team members via phone calls, email, meetings, conferences, and quarterly progress reports. Monthly meetings and a shared google doc will also be another form of communication between all team members.” The October 2024 IEP contained the same language related to the Google doc. Parents assert that district staff did not complete the Google doc accurately to reflect what the student experienced at school, did not acknowledge the parent’s comments in the document, restricted the content of what parents may write in the document, denied the parents editing privileges, granted access to unauthorized users, and falsified information in the document.
The Google doc was in use from the beginning of the school year through February 14, 2025. The document shows daily communication from school staff regarding the student’s activities. The document also shows communication from the parents and responses from the staff. The evidence reviewed by the department does not show the information in the document inaccurately reflected information about the student’s activities or that it contains falsified information. The evidence does not show that the parents’ lack of editing privileges interfered with the essential purpose of the document which was to serve as a daily communication tool between the school and parents regarding the student’s daily activities. The document is a pupil record and as such it is within the discretion of the school district to determine which district employees have a legitimate educational interest in access to the information contained. The student’s IEP did not indicate who should have access to the document, and it would have been inappropriate for it to do so. The district appropriately implemented the student’s IEP with respect to the online document.
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