On April 21, 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 identified are described below and pertain to the 2024-25 school year.
The student is in sixth grade and attends a virtual school operated by the district through open enrollment. The student attended in-person school in the student’s resident school district during the 2023-24 school year. The student’s individualized education program (IEP) in effect for the time period relevant to this complaint was developed on September 11, 2024.
Whether the district properly responded to requests from the parent of a student with a disability to hold a meeting of the student’s IEP team.
The parents of a child with a disability have the right to request an IEP team meeting at any time, and districts must grant any reasonable parent request. The district must respond to the parent’s request within a reasonable amount of time and schedule the meeting at a mutually agreed upon time and place. 34 CFR § 300.322.
In an email to the student’s special education teacher on March 18, 2025, the parent requested an IEP team meeting. The teacher replied that the student’s IEP team meeting would be held in mid to late May 2025, but she would see about having the meeting scheduled earlier. The district contacted the parent on April 4, 2025, and proposed a meeting date of May 16, 2025, the parent rejected this date as the family would be out of state. On April 7, 2025, the district suggested May 2, 2025, as an alternative meeting date, which the parent rejected on April 10, 2025. Between April 16 and April 21, 2025, the district attempted to coordinate IEP team members’ schedules to find a different date and on April 24, 2025, confirmed a new meeting date of May 5, 2025. The district properly responded to the parent’s request for an IEP team meeting by scheduling the meeting at a mutually agreed on time and place.
Whether the district properly developed the student’s IEP to address class attendance, missing assignments, an incentive program, and removal of services from the IEP.
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 an IEP based on the student’s unique, disability-related needs that is reasonably calculated to enable the student to make appropriate progress in light of the student’s circumstances, documenting that program in the IEP, and implementing the program as articulated in the IEP. For most students, the IEP must be designed to allow the student to progress from grade to grade, but if that is not possible, the IEP should be appropriately ambitious in light of the child’s circumstances. 34 CFR §§ 300.320-300.324; Wis. Stat. § 115.78(2); Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 137 S.Ct. 988. The IEP team must identify how the student's disability affects the student's involvement and progress in the general curriculum, develop measurable annual goals designed to meet the student's disability-related needs, and align special education services to enable the student to advance appropriately toward attaining the annual goals, make progress in the general curriculum, and be educated with nondisabled students. 34 CFR §§ 300.320 and 300.323. In developing each child’s IEP, the IEP team must consider the concerns of the parents. 34 CFR §§ 300.324. When a student’s IEP team determines the student's behavior impedes the student's learning or that of others, the IEP team must consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports to address the behavior 34 CFR §§ 300.320(a) & 300.324(a).
During the student’s IEP team meeting in September 2024, the parent expressed concerns that the student had had difficulty remaining in virtual classrooms when she had previously participated in a virtual program. The team identified class attendance as a behavior that impeded the student’s learning and specified breaks, graphic organizers, checklists, social skills instruction, and check-ins to address the behavior, identified completing class activities and attending class as a disability related need, established an annual goal to assist the student to attend and stay in class, and provided for specially designed instruction and occupational therapy to support the student in making progress towards meeting the goal. The IEP team appropriately developed the student’s IEP with respect to class attendance and missing assignments.
The student’s IEP did not contain an incentive program. During the course of the school year, the student’s regular education teacher implemented an incentive program to encourage the student’s participation in class. The regular education teacher used this incentive program in the past with students with and without disabilities. Regular educators are free to implement regular education interventions for students with disabilities without having such interventions specified in the IEP and are not required to have a student’s IEP team approve discontinuation of such interventions.
The student’s IEP developed in September 2024 did not contain some special education services that were specified in the student’s IEP from the prior school year. In developing the IEP, the team appropriately considered the student’s needs in the context of the virtual school environment and specified services appropriate for that environment. School districts are not obligated to adopt whole cloth, IEPs developed by a previous school district and indeed it would be inappropriate to do so without first considering the context of the new school’s educational program and the student’s new educational environment.
Whether the district properly measured the student’s progress toward attainment of annual goals addressing attendance and class engagement.
Each IEP must include a description of how the student’s progress toward meeting annual goals will be measured and when periodic reports on the progress the student is making toward meeting the annual goals will be provided. 34 CFR 300. 320(a)(3).
The student’s annual goal addressing class attendance and class engagement had two objectives; “will proactively take two- minute breaks so that she is able to stay in class until the end 80% of the time,” and “will learn to independently begin and complete 80% of in class activities.” The baseline for the first objective was 60% and for the second was 0%. The procedures for measuring the student’s progress were teacher observations, anecdotal notes, work completion, and attendance. Reports about the student’s progress were to be provided tri-annually. The first progress report on this goal was provided to the parents on March 5, 2025. The report stated the student had met the goal with an 80% level of attainment on both objectives.
The parent is concerned that the data used to report on the student’s progress in March was not accurate. The evidence reviewed by the department shows that the district used the available data to appropriately determine the student’s progress. The parent is also concerned that the district did not provide a progress report until March which was not appropriate given the “tri-annual” language in the student’s IEP. The district asserts that the regular progress information provided to the parents of virtual school students in combination with the March report and the student’s IEP team meetings meets the “tri-annual expectation” of the IEP. Under these circumstances, the department agrees with the parent. The general expectation for progress reports described as “tri-annual,” would be for the parent to receive three reports specifically related to IEP goals provided approximately 1/3, 2/3, and 3/3 through the school term. Within 30 days of the date of this decision, the district shall submit to the department a corrective action plan outlining the steps it will take to ensure IEP teams at the district’s virtual school clearly describe when IEP progress reports will be provided and that individualized progress reports are provided as specified in the IEP. As this goal was not continued in the student’s current IEP, no student specific corrective action is required.
Whether the district properly implemented the student’s IEP regarding noise cancelling headphones and fidget items.
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 services to be provided to the student. 34 CFR §§ 300.320(a). 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.
The student’s IEP specified the use of noise-cancelling headphones and fidgets when taking state tests, when taking district tests, and during live class sessions. The district agrees that it did not make noise-cancelling headphones available to the student during state testing. The student used their own headphones during state testing and was able to participate in the testing with that accommodation. In January 2025, the parent requested the district provide putty for the student as a fidget, the district ordered the putty and had it shipped to the student’s home on January 7, 2025. The parent asserts she believed it was the responsibility of the district to provide the fidgets without making a request first. Within 30 days of the date of this decision, the district shall provide a corrective action plan outlining the steps it will take to ensure supplementary aids and services are available to virtual students as specified in IEPs and that parents are clearly informed of the process for obtaining items specified in the IEP. As the student was not impacted by the lack of headphones and ultimately received the putty as requested, no student specific corrective action is required.
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