On April 8, 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, beginning the 2024-25 school year, properly provided the student with an educational placement in the least restrictive environment and properly implemented the student’s individualized education program (IEP) regarding paraprofessional support and personal care services.
Whether the district properly provided the student with an educational placement in the least restrictive environment.
Placement decisions for students with disabilities must be made by each student’s IEP team based on the student’s unique disability related needs. The IEP team must include the student’s parents, and other persons knowledgeable about the student, the meaning of the evaluation data, and the available placement options. 34 CFR § 300.116(a)(1). Local education agencies must provide each student with a disability a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment (LRE). To the maximum extent appropriate, school districts must ensure students with disabilities are educated with students who are nondisabled. Special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of students with disabilities from the regular educational environment should be used only if the nature or severity of a student’s disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. 34 CFR § 300.114(a)(2). Unless the IEP requires some other arrangement, the student must be educated in the school that he or she would attend if nondisabled and, in selecting the LRE, consideration must be given to any potential harmful effect on the student or on the quality of services that the student needs. In addition, the student must not be removed from education in age-appropriate regular classrooms solely because of needed modifications in the general education curriculum. 34 CFR § 300.116(a)(2)(e). LEAs must ensure the availability of a continuum of alternative placements to meet the needs of students with disabilities. 34 CFR § 300.115.
It is not appropriate to shorten the school day for a student with a disability unless the student’s IEP team determines a shortened day is required to address the student’s unique disability-related needs. This should occur only in rare circumstances, and in most cases, a shortened school day should be in place for only a short amount of time. When a student’s school day is shortened, the student’s IEP must include an explanation of why the student’s disability-related needs require a shortened day, and a plan for the student’s return to school for a full day, including a plan to meet more frequently to review student data and determine whether the student is able to return to school full-time. Shortened school days may not be used to manage student behavior or as a substitute for discipline. 34 CFR § 300.116; DPI Special Education Information Update Bulletin 24.01.
The student who is the subject of this complaint is enrolled in middle school in the district and has complex medical needs. The student has never attended school full-time due to parent concerns about the amount of time the student requires for care to address their difficulty waking up, general health needs, risk of fatigue, and feeding needs. At the beginning of the 2024-25 school year, the student continued on the same schedule as they had the previous school year. The student’s IEP in effect explained that the student had “a fully replaced curriculum that focuses on cause and effect, engagement, tracking, attending, and intentional movement. [The student] attends regular education classes and orchestra. [The student] eats lunch in the cafeteria with grade level peers.” The IEP provided for the following special education services:
● 20 minutes weekly specially designed physical education instruction
● 30 minutes monthly vision itinerant instruction and observation
● 30 minutes monthly physical therapy
● 60 minutes monthly occupational therapy
● 10 minutes weekly (3 times per month) speech/language therapy
● School health services medical paraprofessional, 5 times weekly, 1,200 minutes
The student’s health condition places them at risk of overheating. In past school years, the IEP team ensured that the student’s home base was a special education classroom with air conditioning. The student has worked with the same medical paraprofessional since third grade. When the student is at school, the paraprofessional provides the student with dedicated support throughout the day. Because the student spent less than a full day at school, their special education teacher and paraprofessional prioritized providing the special education services and supports over the student spending time in general education classrooms and settings. They included time with nondisabled peers whenever possible, such as seeking out peers in the hallways during time in the student’s stander, joining science class on occasion, participating in lunch and recess, and attending music class.
While the school has consistently had staff available who are properly trained to provide the student with food through their g-tube, the student’s parent has always managed feeding outside of the student’s school hours. At the start of the 2024-25 school year, the school had a newly assigned school nurse. The school nurse inquired with the parent about potentially providing the student food at school, but the parent declined due to concerns with the student’s slow digestion and vomiting. On February 6, 2025, the IEP team agreed to provide virtual services to the student twice per week.
The IEP team met again to discuss additional options for increasing services on April 24, 2025. While offsite and home services were contemplated, the parent felt most comfortable with continuing virtual services. The student’s future high school case manager and high school nurse attended this IEP team meeting to begin planning the student’s transition to high school for the 2025-26 school year. In virtual meetings, the paraprofessional has foreshadowed changes with the student and parent. The current plan is for the student to attend high school in-person.
The decision to have the student on a shortened day was made well before the beginning of the 2024-25 school year. The student’s day was not shortened to manage behavior. The IEP team has determined that a shortened day is appropriate based on the student’s complex medical and feeding needs. The district has indicated its willingness to provide more services to potentially increase the student’s day. Based on the unique circumstances of this case, continuing on a shortened day was appropriate. The shortened day has limited the extent of the student’s ability to interact with nondisabled peers. While time in the regular education environment is described in the IEP, based on the provision that more time may be in the special education setting to manage the student’s health, the IEP is designed to be flexible based on the student’s day-to-day needs. Additionally, the parent’s decision to keep the student at home shifted the priority of the IEP team’s focus in meetings this year to getting the student back to physically attending school. The IEP team has met to discuss the situation and has a plan to return to school for the 2025-26 school year. Based on the unique circumstances of this case, the district properly provided the student with an educational placement in the least restrictive environment for the student.
Whether the district properly implemented the IEP regarding paraprofessional support and personal care services.
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 clear descriptions of the amount, frequency, location, and duration of services, so the commitment of resources is clear to all IEP team members, including the parent, and all involved in implementing the IEP. Staff responsible for implementing the student’s IEP must be informed of their specific responsibilities. 34 CFR § 300.323; Wis. Stat. § 115.787.
The student’s IEP in effect at the beginning of the 2024-25 school year called for nine components that were paraprofessional or personal care services:
● Medically trained paraprofessional, five times weekly 1,200 minutes, as related service
● Positioning support during class time
● Adaptive equipment for bathroom support
● Adult assistance for self-care during diaper changes, clothing changes, cleaning
● Adult trained in [the student]’s medical needs within arm’s reach entire time in school
● Position changes 10 minutes every hour
● Nurse direct observation of student to monitor health status, five minutes, twice weekly
● Nurse to review health plans
● Nurse training of [the student]’s staff until competency observed in giving water via g-tube, all emergency procedures including seizure protocol and how to give rescue medication
At the annual IEP team meeting on February 6, 2025, two relevant changes to these services took effect starting February 21, 2025:
● Medically trained paraprofessional for all transitions and all times at school as a supplementary service
● Removed Nurse direct observation as a service
The district provided a medically trained paraprofessional that has delivered dedicated support at all times the student has been present at the school. Positioning support and bathroom support were central to the beginning of the student’s school day. Based on staff interviews, there is no indication that the paraprofessional neglected any described duties. While the frequency and amount describing paraprofessional minutes was originally in conflict with the student’s actual schedule, the IEP team has revised the IEP to be more precise. The parent agreed that the district has implemented paraprofessional supports as described in the IEP.
The nurse fulfilled the training duties described in the IEP. The nurse did not recall directly monitoring the student twice weekly as described in the IEP in effect from the beginning of the 2024-25 school year through February 21, 2025. The nurse visited the student’s classroom regularly. The nurse believed the district met the student’s medical needs. Between regular classroom visits, the paraprofessional’s dedicated support, and the emergency protocols in place, the district was prepared to provide the medical care required. There were no emergency events involving the student at school.
The district did not properly implement every component of paraprofessional support and personal care services exactly as described in the IEP. However, these errors did not diminish the quality of the care provided to the student. The IEP team removed the requirement for the nurse to directly monitor the student. Based on meeting the student’s needs and revising the IEP to be more precise, no further corrective action will be required for this issue.
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