On May 9, 2025, the Department of Public Instruction (department) received a complaint under state and federal special education law from #### (complainants) against the #### (district). This is the department’s decision regarding that complaint. The issue is whether the district, during the 2024-25 school year, properly conducted a special education reevaluation of a student with a disability.
The purpose of a special education reevaluation is to determine whether a student continues to have a disability requiring specially designed instruction, and to ensure the student’s individualized education program (IEP) team has sufficient current information about the student’s educational needs to develop an appropriate program. 34 CFR § 300.301(c)(2). A district must conduct a reevaluation of each student with a disability at least once every three years unless the district and parent agree that a reevaluation is unnecessary. As part of any special education reevaluation, the IEP team, including the student’s parents, must conduct a review of existing data and information about the student. If the IEP team determines additional information is needed, the district must, within 15 business days of a notice initiating an evaluation, request in writing parental consent for additional testing. The district must provide parents with written notice of any test or other evaluation materials it proposes to administer. If the names of the specific assessment tools to be administered are known, the notice should identify the specific tools along with a brief description. At a minimum, the notice must describe the types of tools that will be used and the area(s) that will be assessed. In addition, the notice should name the individuals who will administer each tool or assessment, if known at the time of the notice. If the names are not known, the notice must identify the role of each person administering assessments. 34 CFR §§ 300.9 and 300.503; Wis. Stat. §§ 115.782 and 115.792. The IEP team must use a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information about the child and may not use any single measure or assessment as the sole criterion for determining whether a student is, or continues to be, a student with a disability and for determining an appropriate educational program for the child. Within 60 days after the district receives parental consent for administering tests or other assessments, the IEP team must meet to determine whether the student has an impairment and needs special education. 34 CFR §§ 300.303-311 and Wis. Stat. § 115.787 and 115.78(3).
The student who is the subject of this complaint is a seventh grader who met initial special education eligibility criteria under the category of specific learning disability (SLD) in 2019. The student’s most recent reevaluation was completed on April 22, 2022, which meant a three-year reevaluation was due to be completed prior to April 22, 2025.
District staff provided the student’s parents with a notice of re-evaluation on January 2, 2025, and an invitation to a meeting to review existing data to determine if additional assessments were required to complete the re-evaluation. The parents, special education teacher, school psychologist, school social worker and regular education math teacher met on January 9, 2025, to review the student’s existing data. The parents stated in an interview conducted by the department that they thought it was a meeting to discuss the student’s IEP. The invitation sent to parents on January 2, 2025, documents that the purpose of the meeting was to review existing information to determine need for additional assessments or other evaluation materials. The areas of concern were math skills, the student’s lack of self-confidence and a need to develop stronger executive functioning skills. This was documented on input reports from five different teachers across different subject areas. The student’s parents also provided information from an input sheet that was filled out prior to the meeting and noted that math was an area of difficulty for the student. They also noted that the student “is self-conscious about how much they struggle,” and some executive functioning skills, such as time management and organization.
On January 13, 2025, the district sent the student’s parents written notice to conduct additional assessments. The notice listed the areas to be evaluated that included social/emotional/behavior, academic achievement, and a social history. The description of assessments noted several informal measures such as observations and record reviews, over 25 different formal standardized assessment tools, including tests, rating scales, inventories, and diagnostic scales. The student’s parents signed and dated the consent form on January 16, 2025, and the district received the consent form on January 21, 2025. The district proceeded to collect information by administering four of the standardized assessment tools indicated on the consent form. However, the written notice was not properly completed as listing multiple assessment tools that could possibly be utilized did not provide the parents sufficient notice of the evaluation materials it intended to administer.
The IEP team and parents met on March 3, 2025, to discuss the information collected and conduct the student’s reevaluation. During this meeting, the IEP team reviewed the results of two standardized academic tests and two rating scales assessing functional skills including anxiety. The IEP team reviewed reevaluation criteria for SLD. The draft reevaluation worksheet completed by the team indicated that the student could perform to accepted expectations without specially designed instruction and that the student no longer needed specially designed instruction. The team concluded that the student no longer met the SLD criteria. The draft worksheet also documents that the student met criteria for another impairment area and noted that the student’s “struggles in math were similar to struggles in other subjects but were primarily due to low self-confidence, and excessive worrying, characteristics of anxiety.”
The IEP team also considered disability criteria for an emotional behavior disability (EBD) and determined the student met the criteria for EBD. A draft version of the EBD criteria worksheet documents that the student experiences pervasive unhappiness, depression or anxiety, and further explains that the student experiences excessive worrying and low self-confidence. The form indicates that on a self-reported measure, the student did not identify concerns with anxiety. However, a formal rating scale completed by two teachers and the parent had scores that fell within the clinically significant range for anxiety. The student’s parents raised questions about the EBD criteria during the meeting, but did not state that they disagreed with the team’s findings or eligibility determination.
On March 5, 2025, the parents sent an email to the special education teacher, the school psychologist who served as the local educational agency representative at the meeting, and the school social worker indicating they had concerns about the outcome of the reevaluation. The parents were specifically concerned that the IEP team found the student no longer met SLD criteria, but did meet criteria for EBD. The parents felt that the IEP team did not correctly apply the EBD criteria leading to an inaccurate identification of EBD. The student’s parents felt the student’s anxiety was a direct result of the student’s SLD. The school psychologist responded to the email stating that the IEP team was open to revisiting the discussion to clarify the IEP team’s determination regarding the EBD criteria. The school psychologist also sent the SLD criteria form and asked parents to provide the required signature. On March 6, 2025, the school principal sent an email to the parents and offered for the IEP team to reconvene the IEP team to further discuss the reevaluation since the paperwork for the reevaluation had not yet been finalized.
The IEP team reconvened on March 17, 2025, to discuss the SLD and EBD criteria. The parents presented their concerns about the student meeting the EBD criteria explaining that the internalized behaviors observed by the school staff were not present in the home or community environment. The IEP team explained their rationale for considering EBD and provided the parents with specific examples of observed behavior. After discussing the criteria for two hours the special education director paused the meeting for a break. Following the break, the special education director said district staff decided they would not continue their consideration of criteria for EBD. The IEP team, including the student’s parents again reviewed the SLD reevaluation criteria and came to a determination that the student continued to meet SLD criteria. The IEP team did not complete the EBD criteria form or document in the evaluation report that EBD was considered and rejected in the evaluation report. The district did not properly conduct a re-evaluation.
Within 30 days, the district must reconvene the student’s IEP team to review the student's reevaluation and ensure proper documentation of all disability categories considered and the reasons for any rejections. Following this discussion, the IEP team must determine whether there is a need to update the student’s IEP. Within 10 days of the IEP team meeting, the district must submit a copy of the reevaluation and, if necessary, the updated IEP to the department.
Within 30 days of this decision, the district must also develop and submit to the department for approval a corrective action plan to ensure staff conducting evaluations understand SLD reevaluation criteria, EBD criteria, and the process for determining which additional evaluation materials are required. The corrective action plan must also ensure staff understand how to properly document team decisions and properly document consideration of all areas of disability considered and why the team accepts or rejects them within evaluation reports. The department will conduct a review of district records completed after the implementation of the corrective action plan.
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