On May 20, 2025, the Department of Public Instruction (department) received a complaint under state and federal special education law from #### (complainant) against the #### (district). This is the department’s decision regarding that complaint. The issues are whether the district, beginning May 20, 2024, properly responded to a request from the parent of a student with a disability for a special education reevaluation, properly developed and implemented the student’s individualized education program (IEP) to address student’s disability related needs, and properly followed special education disciplinary requirements.
Whether the district properly responded to a request from the parent of a student with a disability for a special education reevaluation.
Districts must reevaluate each student with an IEP 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 data is needed, the district must, within 15 business days of a notice initiating an evaluation, request in writing parental consent for additional testing. 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 complainant, who is the student’s parent, indicated that they requested the district conduct a reevaluation of the student multiple times prior to the time period relevant to this complaint, and they repeated their request during the student’s IEP team meeting on December 19, 2024. The district created a notice of reevaluation dated January 15, 2025. District records indicate the IEP team, including the student’s parent, spoke in person to review existing information about the student on January 17, 2025. District staff prepared a notice of the need to conduct additional assessments as part of the reevaluation and a request for the parent’s written consent to proceed on January 17, 2025. The district properly responded to a request from the parent of a student with a disability for a special education reevaluation.
Whether the district properly developed and implemented the student’s IEP to address student’s disability-related needs.
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 for each student, documenting that program clearly, and implementing the program. Each IEP must include a statement of the student's present level of academic achievement and functional performance, including how the student's disability affects the student's involvement and progress in the general curriculum. The IEP must be based on the student’s unique disability-related needs and be reasonably calculated to enable the student to make appropriate progress in light of their circumstances. The disability-related need expressed in the IEP must be described with sufficient specificity. Restating the student’s impairment category or a general statement that a student needs to improve in a general curriculum area (e.g., reading or math) is not sufficient. The disability-related need statement must identify why the student is not meeting the standards and expectations. 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 student’s circumstances. 34 CFR §§ 300.320-300.324; Wis. Stat. §§ 115.78(2), 115.787(2)(b).
Whenever a student with a disability exhibits behaviors that impede the student's learning or that of others, districts must consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports and other strategies to address that behavior. 34 CFR § 300.324 (a)(2)(i). If a student displays inappropriate behavior despite having an IEP that includes behavioral supports, this may indicate that the behavioral supports in the IEP are not being appropriately implemented or are not appropriate for the student. In these situations, the IEP team should meet to review whether the supports and services are being implemented or whether the supports and services are effective and revise the IEP accordingly. It is critical that services and supports are designed to support the needs of students with disabilities and ensure FAPE are appropriately implemented to avoid an overreliance of exclusionary discipline in response to a student’s behavior. Questions and Answers: Addressing the Needs of Children with Disabilities and IDEA's Discipline Provisions, U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, July 19, 2022.
During the 2024-25 school year the student’s IEP team met on September 5, 2024, December 19, 2024, February 18, 2025, and April 21, 2025. Additionally, the student’s IEP team conducted the March 19, 2025, reevaluation, and the district also conducted manifestation determination meetings on February 7 and April 16, 2025. The IEP team described the student’s disability-related needs in the first several iterations of the student’s IEP as “Written Expression, Reading Comprehension, Behavior, Speech and Sound Production, Self Advocacy, and Communication Needs.” The February 18, 2025, IEP added “Specially Designed Physical Education” as a disability-related need. During the April 21, 2025, IEP, the IEP team revised the student’s disability-related needs to “Executive Function, Mathematics, Physical Education, and Social Skills.” Although the IEP team included statements of the student’s disability-related needs, the information did not specifically identify the skills or behaviors the student needs to develop or improve the student’s disability-related needs.
Throughout the 2024-25 school year, despite the student’s ongoing behavioral issues including several out of school suspensions, the IEP team consistently identified executive function as a disability-related need around behavior without developing appropriate supports to address the student’s behavioral needs. The student continued to exhibit an increase in behaviors during the school year and the IEP team did not make appropriate responsive adjustments to the student’s IEP. Since the IEP was not properly developed, it could not be implemented in a manner that appropriately addresses the student’s needs. The district did not properly develop and implement the student’s IEP to address the student’s disability-related needs, particularly in the area of behavior.
Whether the district properly followed special education disciplinary requirements.
When a student has been removed for more than 10 cumulative days of school, the district must provide services to enable the student to continue to participate in the general education curriculum and make progress toward their IEP goals. When the student has been removed for more than 10 cumulative days in a school year, the district must also determine whether each subsequent disciplinary removal is part of a pattern of removals that constitutes a change in the student’s placement. A series of removals constitutes a pattern when the student has been removed for more than 10 cumulative days in a single school year, the behavior leading to the current proposed removal is substantially similar to previous incidents, and other additional factors apply, such as the proximity of removals to each other. When a student with a disability is subject to a potential disciplinary change of placement, the district must determine whether the student’s conduct is a manifestation of the student’s disability within 10 school days of the decision to change placement. 34 CFR § 300.536.
The district held a manifestation determination at the parent’s request on February 7, 2025, after the student was suspended for a total of eight days during the 2024-25 school year. The district held another manifestation determination on April 16, 2025, following two more days of suspension. Both manifestation determinations occurred after the student already served their suspensions, and both teams determined that the conduct was a result of the student’s disability. However, the district was not required to provide services during the periods of removal or determine whether the removals constituted a pattern triggering the need for a manifestation determination because the student was not suspended for over 10 days during the school year.
The parent believed that the student was removed from extracurricular activities after behavioral issues. The district confirmed the student was removed from robotics following the March 2025 conduct. Staff explained that the conduct in March occurred at the beginning of spring break just before the last competition of the year. Removal of the student from robotics was done in accordance with the district’s code of conduct. Removal from an extracurricular activity in this manner does not constitute a disciplinary change in placement and does not create an obligation for the district to follow special education disciplinary requirements. The district did not improperly follow special education disciplinary requirements.
Within 30 days of the date of this decision, the district must reconvene the student’s IEP team to properly discuss and document the student’s disability-related needs and, as appropriate, review and revise the student’s IEP to address the student’s behavioral needs. The district must submit a copy of the revised IEP to the department within 10 days of the IEP team meeting.
Additionally, within 30 days of the date of this decision, the district must develop and submit to the department for approval a corrective action plan. This plan must include training related to properly discussing and documenting a student’s disability-related needs, including descriptions of the specific skills or knowledge students need and how those disability-related needs support the development of the student’s IEP.
All documents related to this training, including evidence the training has been provided, must be submitted to the department.
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