On May 6, 2025 (form dated April 30, 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 period of time beginning May 6, 2024.
Whether the district properly implemented the student’s individualized education program (IEP) regarding specially designed instruction.
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 IEP of the student who is the subject of this complaint indicates the district would provide specially designed instruction in the areas of functional academics and transitional skills daily for 85 minutes each. The complainant, who is the student’s parent, alleges that these minutes were not provided as written as according to the student’s daily logs there are too many breaks and too much non-academic time documented.
The district conducted an internal investigation into these allegations between January 31, 2025, and February 10, 2025, which included in depth interviews with seven staff members who have knowledge of the daily operations of the student’s classroom. The investigation found that break times were not interfering with academic instruction and that the specially designed instruction was being delivered as was written in the student’s IEP. The time the student spent taking breaks was in addition to, not a substitution for, their minutes of specially designed instruction. Department interviews with school staff and records reviewed as part of this complaint investigation confirm the results of the district’s internal investigation. The district properly implemented the student’s IEP regarding specially designed instruction.
Whether the district properly implemented the student’s IEP regarding provision of weekly video examples to the parent.
At the IEP team meeting held on February 13, 2025, the student’s parent requested that staff provide them with videos of the student participating in skill building activities. The parent asked for nine videos per week. The IEP team discussed this request and determined they would not commit to a specific number of videos per week but would send videos, “when they want to share a new skill development or share a video with the parents that can be utilized for video modeling at home.” It was reasonable for the IEP team to agree to this modified version of the parent’s request in the context of an IEP team meeting. Interviews with school staff confirm that videos were sent home according to what was written in the IEP. The district properly implemented the student’s IEP regarding the provision of video examples.
Whether the district properly implemented the student’s IEP regarding monthly sharing of data collection.
The parent sent an email to district staff on October 15, 2024, requesting all data that had been collected by a specific staff member since they began working with the student. This request was in addition to the progress reports that were to be sent home with the student’s report cards, per the student’s IEP. The student’s IEP did not require the district to submit specific data from staff members. The district fulfilled the parent’s request, and the parent confirmed receipt of the requested data via email on October 17, 2024.
Interviews with school staff as part of this investigation and the results of the district’s internal investigation confirm that all staff were appropriately recording data in accordance with the student’s IEP and properly monitoring the student’s progress. The district appropriately implemented the student’s IEP regarding data collection.
Whether the district properly implemented the student’s IEP regarding supervision while eating.
Due to the student’s disability, they are at risk of choking when eating. At the annual IEP team meeting on April 8, 2025, the IEP team amended the student’s IEP to include adult support for the student when eating. Even prior to the April 8 IEP team meeting, school staff confirmed that there was always an adult present when the student was eating and there were no instances of the student choking during the 2024-25 school year. The district properly implemented the student’s IEP regarding this provision.
Whether the district properly developed the student’s IEP regarding changes to the student’s IEP outside of a team meeting, specifically, the determinations of the IEP team, and measurable annual goals.
Each student’s 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, align special education services to enable the student to advance appropriately toward attaining the annual goals and make progress in the general curriculum, and be educated with nondisabled students. 34 CFR §§ 300.320 and 300.323.
After receiving a final copy of the student’s IEP on November 20, 2024, the parent reviewed it and requested that district staff make several changes to it. School staff worked with the parent to document their concerns and created a draft “work in progress” version of the IEP in the district’s student information system that would not go into effect until after the IEP team had a chance to meet. Staff shared the draft language with the parent on January 16, 2025. The parent alleges that the January document was a new final version of the IEP and therefore the changes included were improperly made outside of an IEP team meeting. However, the district clearly communicated to the parent that the document contained draft language. The student’s IEP team reconvened on February 13, 2025, to discuss the parent’s concerns and complete the draft IEP. The February IEP included a placement page indicating the changes take effect as of February 24, 2025. The district properly developed the student’s IEP.
The student’s parent also raised concerns that the student’s annual goals had not changed for several years. The student’s IEP team reviewed the annual goals at an IEP team meeting on April 8, 2025. The team determined that the student had met one of the four goals and had made progress toward but not met the remaining goals. The new goals that were developed were not the same as the previous year. They continued to focus on independence, functional math skills, and communication skills, but focused on different areas and skills than had been in the prior year’s goals. The district properly developed the student’s annual goals.
Whether the district provided the student’s parent prior written notice, including a copy of the student’s IEP, prior to its implementation.
Any time a district proposes or refuses to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, or educational placement or the provision of a free appropriate public education to a student with a disability, the district must provide the parents prior written notice, including, if applicable, a copy of the student’s IEP, a reasonable time before any proposed changes take effect. 34 CFR §300.503.
The IEP that was developed at the IEP team meeting on October 24, 2024, was provided to the parent on November 20, 2024, two days after its implementation date of November 18, 2024. The district recognized its error and sent a memo to all relevant staff on December 3, 2024, detailing the appropriate procedures for providing parents with a copy of the IEP prior to implementation. All subsequent IEPs for this student during the 2024-25 school year were appropriately provided to the parent prior to their dates of implementation. No further corrective action is required.
Whether the district properly responded to the parent’s request for an IEP meeting.
The parent of a student with a disability may request an IEP team meeting at any time, and the district should grant any reasonable request for an IEP team meeting. If the district denies the parent's request for an IEP team meeting, the district must provide the parent with a notice of refusal in writing and include an explanation of why the district refuses to grant the request. 34 CFR § 300.503.
On September 1, 2024, the student’s parent sent an email to school staff requesting an IEP team meeting to be held “within the first six weeks of the beginning of the school year.” Email records confirm that the team began attempting to schedule an IEP team meeting in response to the parent’s request on September 11, 2024. The district ultimately scheduled the meeting for October 24, 2024. The student’s parent agreed to this date and attended the meeting. While the meeting was held during the eighth week of the school year rather than within the first six weeks per the parent’s request, district staff worked in good faith to schedule the meeting in an appropriate manner and given those efforts, the date of the meeting was not unreasonable. The district properly responded to the parent’s request for an IEP team meeting.
Whether the district provided special education services using properly trained and licensed staff.
Each school board must ensure every teacher, aide, or other professional staff holds a valid certificate, license, or permit issued by the department for the position for which the individual is employed. Special education services must be provided by properly licensed special education teachers. 34 CFR § 300.156; Wis. Stats § 118.19; Wis. Admin. Code § PI 34.
The student’s parent alleged that paraprofessionals were often left alone with the students in the classroom without a teacher present and were providing specially designed instruction. Interviews with school staff confirm that the student’s specially designed instruction was often provided through “stations” where the students would rotate through different activities. The specially designed instruction was always provided by appropriately trained and licensed staff at one of the stations. The student’s classroom is very large, spanning three different room-sized spaces. All staff members were not always visible to each other when working in the “stations” setup, but there was always appropriate supervision of paraprofessionals working with students. The district reviewed the login data for the online program used to document the provision of specially designed instruction. They found that the appropriate staff members logged into the program in a manner consistent with the proper delivery of specially designed instruction. The district’s internal investigation found that all specially designed instruction was provided by appropriately licensed staff. The department’s investigation confirmed the district’s finding. The district properly provided special education services using properly trained and licensed staff.
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