On May 21, 2025, the Department of Public Instruction (department) received a complaint under state and federal special education law from #### (complainant) against the #### (district) and #### (school). This is the department’s decision regarding that complaint. The issues are described below, and pertain to the 2024-25 school year.
The complainant is an adult student who is blind due to a genetic condition. The student began attending the #### (the school), a school run by the state of Wisconsin, at the beginning of high school. In state school placements, the student’s resident school district, a local education agency (LEA), is responsible for the student’s initial placement. A representative from the state school must participate on the IEP team that makes the state school placement. Once placed, the student’s resident LEA remains responsible for providing a free appropriate public education (FAPE). The resident LEA and state school coordinate IEP development and implementation. A state school representative is responsible for scheduling and preparing documents for subsequent IEP team meetings and for ensuring reevaluations are conducted. The resident LEA representative is an IEP team participant. The state school implements the IEP. For the student who is the subject of the complaint, the school arranged IEP team meetings at a time agreeable to the student, school staff, and one resident LEA staff member, who served as the LEA representative at every IEP team meeting during the 2024-25 school year.
The student completed all required high school credits at the conclusion of the 2023-24 school year. However, the IEP team planned for the student to continue attending programming at the school to address additional disability-related needs. The summer prior to the 2024-25 school year, the student turned 18 years old. Legal decision-making rights, including those under state and federal special education law, transferred from the student’s parents to the student when they reached the age of majority. See Wis. Stat. § 115.807(2). At the beginning of the school year on August 26, 2024, the school provided the student with a printed notice of procedural safeguards as part of a packet of registration materials. The notice was not in braille and not accessible to the student without the assistance of a sighted person. The student began the 2024-25 school year attending the school in a dedicated college and career readiness program.
The student’s IEP team met to conduct an annual meeting on October 24, 2024. The student met five out of seven annual goals. The IEP team revised the unmet math and daily living skills goals. The IEP team determined that the student would continue attending the school at least through the term of that IEP, which indicated it was projected to be in effect until October 6, 2025.
During the school year, the student frequently reported having migraine headaches and missed a significant number of classes. On February 26, 2025, members of the IEP team, including the student, met to review existing data and determine additional assessments for the student’s upcoming reevaluation in April. The student expressed concerns about possible autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). One IEP team member cautioned that some behavior commonly associated with blindness can present similarly to autism and ADHD without the presence of those conditions. The IEP team decided to examine the student’s concerns by conducting assessments in several areas, including functional vision, learning media, orientation and mobility (O&M), social-emotional health, autism, executive functioning, and adaptive behavior assessments.
On March 11, 2025, a fellow student alleged the student had made inappropriate contact on several occasions, which the school and law enforcement investigated. The student who is the subject of the complaint reported having a migraine and did not return for the rest of the week. The following week was the school’s spring break. On April 1, 2025, a second student alleged inappropriate contact. The school gave the student a two-day in-school suspension with services, which the student served the following two days. On April 13, 2025, a school staff member found two pill bottles in the student’s backpack. Overall, the bottles contained six different medications, including three doctor-prescribed medications and three other non-prescribed medications, one a controlled substance. The school and law enforcement both interviewed the student. The student had difficulty explaining their intent for possessing the medications but referenced recent thoughts of self-harm. Following the investigation, the student decided they did not want to contact their family and opted for to be evaluated at a local hospital. The following day, school staff found empty containers among the student’s possessions that law enforcement believed to be drug paraphernalia. The student stayed at the hospital four nights and underwent psychological evaluation. On April 18, 2025, the school sent notice of a five-day out-of-school suspension to take effect from April 21, 2025, through April 25, 2025. On April 23, 2025, the school sent notice of a manifestation determination meeting that took place the following day. Neither the school nor the district sent a notice of consideration of expulsion or other potential disciplinary change of placement at that time, nor did anyone from the district or school alert the student of the potential for graduation at the end of the 2024-25 school year before the manifestation determination. Prior to the manifestation determination meeting, school staff prepared questions about bringing non-prescribed medications to school grounds, including clarifying the student’s understanding of the contents of the pill containers and their reasons for possessing the substances.
The manifestation determination meeting held on April 24, 2025 focused on review of a form designed to prompt the team to answer the two central questions, 1) whether the student’s behavior on April 13, 2025, was caused by, or had a direct and substantial relationship to the student’s disability, and 2) whether the behavior was the direct result of the school’s failure to implement the student’s IEP. The form included a narrative of the behavior incident and a list of all of the services in the program summary of the student’s IEP, including specially designed instruction, related services, supplementary aids and services, and staff support responsibilities. The team did not review any assessments that had been prepared for the student’s upcoming reevaluation meeting scheduled for the following week.
Staff who participated in the manifestation determination meeting reported to the department that they believed the student answered the prepared questions and explained their intentions in the meeting honestly. The student admitted not having prescriptions for all of the substances. The student was aware possessing those substances was a violation of school policy. The student explained feeling overwhelmed from stress, pressure both at school and at home, and a desire to silence those feelings. While the school offered mental health services as a resource and has a student services team, the student reported knowing about the team but not wanting to seem attention-seeking. The student did not identify a specific plan for how to use the medications but described the intent as self-medicating and hoping for the best.
At that meeting, the student reported recent diagnoses of major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder. However, the team conducting the manifestation determination did not take those diagnoses into account when considering whether the student’s disability had a direct or substantial relationship to the behavior. The meeting members discussed the student’s disability in terms of blindness only, and agreed that the student’s blindness did not cause or have a direct and substantial relationship to the student’s possession of the substances. All meeting members agreed that the student’s IEP had been implemented. Therefore, the IEP team documented consensus on the two questions, deciding the behavior was not a manifestation of the student’s disability. Following the determination that the behavior was not a manifestation of the student’s disability, the IEP team planned to consider placement in a virtual environment in its upcoming reevaluation meeting.
The IEP team reconvened for a reevaluation meeting on April 28, 2025. Immediately before the reevaluation meeting, although there had not been previous discussion that the student may be expelled, the school provided the student with an expulsion abeyance agreement describing eight conditions the student would need to comply with in order to avoid expulsion, including virtual instruction, not entering the school campus without permission, and not engaging in behaviors that would be grounds for suspension. The agreement would be effective through age 21 or the student earning a regular high school diploma, whichever came first.
During the reevaluation meeting, the team reviewed completed assessments. However, some information from planned assessments was unavailable, as they had not been completed due to the student’s school absences during March and April because of the student’s health issues, the school schedule, the out-of-school suspension, and the student’s hospitalization. The student was not available in-person for the planned assessments. Staff and the student completed most assessment tasks virtually but were not able to complete the adaptive behavioral assessment. In its place, the team reviewed the summary of the student’s most recent adaptive behavioral assessment from 2022. The IEP team concluded that the student continued to meet criteria for the disability category of blind and visually impaired. The assessments did not suggest pervasive executive functioning problems or autism. An assessment report concluded that the student had ongoing difficulties with emotional regulation, impulsivity, and peer interactions. The main recommendation in that report related to behavior was supporting the move to a virtual environment to reduce environmental triggers and minimize future interpersonal or disciplinary challenges.
During the same meeting, the IEP team considered virtual services and, for the first time, the possibility of the student graduating at the end of the school year. The student did not agree they were ready to graduate and expressed their disapproval. The IEP team reviewed the student’s progress on all annual goals. The student had fully achieved three of the six goals. The team revised the student’s remaining O&M goal to continue building skills for independence in the virtual setting. While the student had not met the living skills goal to cook food with heat independently, the IEP team decided to discontinue that goal based on the change to a virtual environment. The IEP team added new goals for problem solving and identifying resources to access post-graduation. All new and revised goals were designed to be attained by the end of the 2024-25 school year.
The student signed the abeyance agreement one hour after the reevaluation meeting on that same day, April 28, 2025. Starting on April 29, 2025, the student emailed school staff hoping to stay in school through age 21. On May 1, 2025, the IEP team gathered to formally discuss graduation. The meeting included a review of the student’s completion of all required high school credits, academic achievement, and functional performance. The team wrote up recommendations for agencies the student should connect with to help meet the student’s postsecondary goals. The student continued to request to stay at the school, but the rest of the student’s IEP team decided that graduation requirements would be met, IEP goals would be substantially completed, and new IEP goals were not needed for the coming school year. The IEP team provided a graduation date in early June.
The school began providing the student virtual services on May 2, 2025. On May 14, 2025, the student made a formal request with the school to participate in-person the final week of the school year and continue at the school through the following fall semester. The school sent the student a prior written notice form denying the request based on the abeyance agreement and the result of meeting graduation requirements based on the IEP team meetings held on April 28, 2025, and May 1, 2025. The school provided the prior written notice form and several other forms, including a notice of procedural safeguards, through a secure email system. The student unsuccessfully attempted to access the forms on May 19, 2025. The student then provided written permission to receive documents through standard email, and received several forms through email on May 21, 2025, including the prior written notice denying the student’s request dated May 14, 2025, notice of graduation, notice of procedural safeguards, IEP, evaluation, and assessments conducted for the evaluation. The student filed this IDEA complaint on May 21, 2025, the same day they received the requested documentation. The school continued to provide the student virtual services through the last day of class on June 5, 2025. Progress reports documented that the student met all three goals developed on April 28, 2025. Based on the filing of this complaint, the district and school did not move forward with the May 1, 2025, plan for the student to graduate.
Whether the district properly followed special education disciplinary procedures.
Federal special education law provides additional requirements for students with disabilities involved in school disciplinary processes. Under Wisconsin law, a student may be suspended for up to five school days for conduct that violates the LEA’s code of student conduct. A disciplinary change of placement occurs when the student's proposed removal is for more than 10 consecutive school days or when a series of removals constitutes a pattern because the removals total more than 10 cumulative school days in a school year, the behavior is substantially similar to the behavior in previous incidents, and additional factors such as the length of each removal, the total amount of time the student has been removed, and the proximity of the removals to one another. 34 CFR § 300.536(a). The change in placement notice does not have to be in any particular form, but it must meet IDEA notice requirements. Letter to Clayton, 50 IDELR 77 (OSEP 2007). See also, e.g., Tiffin City Schools, 80 IDELR 176 (SEA OH 2021) (finding that an Ohio district violated the IDEA when it expelled a student with a disability and failed to provide written notice of the expulsion to the parent). On the date on which the decision is made to make a removal that constitutes a change of placement of a student with a disability because of a violation of a code of student conduct, the LEA must notify the parents or adult student of that decision and provide the parents or adult student with the procedural safeguards notice described in 34 CFR § 300.504. 34 CFR § 300.530(h).
Within 10 school days of any decision to change the placement of a student with a disability because of a violation of a code of student conduct, the LEA must conduct a manifestation determination. 34 CFR § 300.536. This process determines whether the behavior that resulted in the proposed disciplinary change of placement is a manifestation of the student's disability. The LEA, the parent or adult student, and relevant members of the student's IEP team must review all relevant information in the student's file, including the student's IEP, any teacher observations, and any relevant information provided by the parent or adult student to determine if the conduct in question was caused by, or had a direct and substantial relationship to, the student's disability, or if the conduct in question was the direct result of the LEA's failure to implement the IEP. 34 CFR § 300.530(e). If the conduct is determined to be a manifestation of the student's disability, the IEP team must address the behavior by either conducting a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) and implementing a behavior intervention plan (BIP) for the student or, if a BIP already has been developed, reviewing and modifying the BIP as necessary. 34 CFR § 300.530(f)(1). The student must be returned to the placement from which the student was removed unless the parent or adult student and the LEA agree to a change of placement as part of the modification of the student's behavioral intervention plan, or may remove a student to an interim alternative educational setting (IAES) for not more than 45 school days in special circumstances. 34 CFR §§ 300.530(f)(2); 300.530(g). When a student with a disability has engaged in behavior that would warrant an expulsion under the school's generally applicable student code of conduct, and the behavior has been determined not to be a manifestation of the student's disability, then the student may be subjected to the same disciplinary sanction that a nondisabled student would receive. 34 CFR § 300.530 (b).
The notice of the student’s five-day suspension from April 18, 2025 did not result in a disciplinary change of placement under 34 CFR § 300.536(a). The department finds that the date of the district’s and school’s decision to consider a disciplinary change in placement occurred on April 23, 2025 for the purposes of calculating required timelines. This was when the school provided the student notice of the manifestation determination. While the meeting was held timely based on the date of the decision, the district and school did not provide the student with the required notice of procedural safeguards on the day of that decision. The school later provided a notice of procedural safeguards on May 19, 2025, in response to a separate student request. If provided prior to the manifestation determination, that notice of procedural safeguards would have informed the student of the right to present documents for the team to review during the manifestation determination. During the meeting, the IEP team reviewed one form together that included information from one section of the student’s IEP.
The school and district erred in several respects in the conduct of the manifestation determination. The team did not review all of the required information, including new information provided by the student about medical diagnoses and information the student’s IEP team was in the process of obtaining as part of its evaluation. Additionally, the reason for conducting the manifestation determination was not made clear to the student. No notice of a change of placement, either via graduation or disciplinary action, was provided prior to the meeting.
The manifestation determination is a matter of due process designed to respond to disciplinary determinations already made by school authorities, not to be used as an information gathering tool or as part of IEP team discussions related to other matters, such as graduation. Nor should the manifestation determination process be used to “test the waters” to determine whether proceeding with disciplinary action against a student with a disability would be worth the administrative effort. Under the circumstances applicable in this case, since there had not been any notification of a proposed disciplinary change in placement, the reason for the manifestation determination was not clear.
However, given the sequence of events in this circumstance, it is clear that the school and district’s decision to have the student graduate at the end of the 2024-25 school year contrary to the plans previously determined by the student’s IEP team was made in lieu of a decision to pursue a disciplinary change of placement such as expulsion. Since the manifestation determination was conducted under a questionable sequence and with several errors, the IEP team did not properly follow special education disciplinary requirements.
Whether the district properly determined the nature and extent of the student’s disability-related needs.
School districts must conduct comprehensive evaluations to determine a student’s eligibility for special education by assessing the student in all areas related to the suspected disability. 34 CFR § 300.304(c)(4). As part of the comprehensive evaluation, the IEP team must review existing evaluation data and information provided by the parent. 34 CFR § 300.305(a)(1)(i). The IEP team must examine all sources of information and use professional judgment in considering the educational needs of the student. The IEP team must gather information from multiple sources using a variety of methods. If medical information is available, the IEP team must consider it as part of the evaluation, but it must not be the sole component of the evaluation. A medical diagnosis does not result in automatic eligibility for special education. Every special education evaluation must be sufficiently comprehensive to identify all of the student's disability-related needs, whether or not commonly linked to the disability category(s) in which the student has been classified. In the case of a student whose behavior impedes 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). The IEP team should also consider whether a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) is necessary to better understand the function of the student's behavior.
The IEP team properly considered the student’s concerns during the meeting to review existing data and responded with additional assessments. However, with the student’s limited availability during the spring, the team was unable to conduct a current adaptive behavioral assessment. The team reviewed the student’s previous adaptive behavioral assessment from 2022, years prior to the student’s recent behavior challenges. School staff did not seek out available medical information, including psychological evaluations completed during the student’s recent hospitalization. Staff indicated that the school did not request medical records of the student’s hospitalization because the student would be attending school virtually, meaning nursing services to address health would no longer be required. An assessment report prepared for the reevaluation concluded that the student had ongoing difficulties with emotional regulation, impulsivity, and peer interactions. While the IEP team’s decision to not consider additional disability categories as part of the evaluation was reasonable, the IEP team was still responsible for conducting a comprehensive evaluation that identified all of the student’s disability-related needs, whether or not they are typically associated with the student’s identified disability categories. In this case, the only option the IEP team considered in response to the student’s identified behavior difficulties was recommending virtual instruction. The team did not conduct a functional behavioral assessment, did not consider whether the student’s behavior was a special factor impacting the student’s learning or that of others, did not identify the student’s disability-related needs related to behavior, and did not consider positive behavioral interventions and supports. The IEP team did not consider potential disability-related needs beyond those traditionally associated with the student’s identified disability category of blind and visually impaired. The IEP team did not properly determine the nature and extent of the student’s disability-related needs.
Whether the district properly developed and implemented the student’s IEP regarding postsecondary transition goals and services.
LEAs must provide each student with a disability with a FAPE in the least restrictive environment. LEAs 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 progress appropriate 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, 580 U.S. 386, 402 (2017). 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. LEAs should consider the impact of frequent absences on the student's progress and performance and determine how to ensure the student can continue to progress and meet the annual goals in their IEP. Decisions about whether, when, and how to provide make-up services must be individualized and based on a variety of factors including the student's ongoing needs and goals and the effect of the absences on student progress. Whether an interruption in special education services constitutes a denial of FAPE is an individual determination that must be made on a case-by-case basis. Letter to Clarke, 107 LRP 13115 (OSEP 2007). If the student is absent from school for a prolonged period of time, or there is a pattern of repeated short-term absence from school for reasons associated with the student’s disability, it may be appropriate for a district to reconvene the IEP team to discuss the student’s current IEP to determine whether it is necessary to modify the student’s current program or placement. Letter to Balkman, 23 LRP 3417 (OSEP 1995). Beginning at the age of 14, each student’s IEP must include a postsecondary transition plan (PTP) including appropriate measurable postsecondary goals based upon age-appropriate transition assessments related to training, education, employment, and, where appropriate, independent living skills; and the transition services (including courses of study) needed to assist the student in reaching those goals. The plan must be reviewed at least annually. 34 CFR § 300.320(b); Wis. Stat. §§ 115.787(2)(g)1 and 2.
The IEP team reviewed the student’s PTP in meetings on October 24, 2024, and April 28, 2025. Postsecondary goals were central to both IEP team discussions at the meetings and the student’s college and career readiness curriculum. By the end of April, the student had fully met two of the annual goals. One of the two orientation and mobility goals was in progress and modified from outdoor route travel to skills for independence that could be provided in a virtual setting. The notetaking goal was changed to problem-solving. A final goal on daily living was discontinued with the change to virtual instruction. While the student was able to cook with multiple prompts, the student had not made progress on cooking independently. The team added a transition goal to help the student form relationships with vocational and adult service agencies that could help the student continue progress after graduation. The student’s final progress report dated June 5, 2025, confirmed that the student attained all of the revised goals. Based on meeting more frequently than annually, the nature of the college and career readiness program, and the student’s strong progress on annual goals, the IEP team addressed the potential absence concern. The district properly developed and implemented the IEP regarding postsecondary transition goals and services.
Whether the district properly determined the student met district graduation requirements.
In Wisconsin, LEAs must make a free appropriate public education (FAPE) available to all students with disabilities ages 3-21 unless the student has graduated from high school with a regular high school diploma. The criteria for receipt of a regular high school diploma are established by Wisconsin law and local LEA policy. Wis. Stat. § 118.33. Under IDEA, graduation is a change of placement requiring prior written notice. 34 CFR §§ 300.102(a)(3)(iii) and 300.503. Prior written notice must be given to the adult student or parents of a child with a disability a reasonable time before the LEA proposes or refuses to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child or the provision of FAPE to the student. Among several required components, this notice must include a description of the action proposed or refused by the LEA, an explanation of why the LEA proposes or refuses to take the action, and a description of other options that the IEP team considered and the reasons why those options were rejected. 34 CFR § 300.503. Notice must be provided so that the adult student or parents have enough time to fully consider the change and respond to the action before it is implemented. Letter to Chandler, 59 IDELR 110 (OSEP 2012). The notice must be sent after the team decision is made to propose or refuse a change, not before the team meeting. 71 Fed. Reg. 46,691 (2006).
The LEA is required to provide the student with a summary of the student’s academic achievement and functional performance, including recommendations on how to assist the student in meeting the student’s postsecondary goals. 34 CFR § 300.305(e)(3). IDEA does not make achievement of IEP goals a prerequisite for award of a regular high school diploma, rather the IEP team must consider whether the student has made sufficient progress towards goals and objectives of the IEP before issuing a notice of graduation. See Doe v. Marlborough Pub. Sch., 2010 WL 2682433 (D. Mass. June 30, 2010).
In this case, the district and school conducted a compliant process to review graduation eligibility. There was a meeting with the student and other IEP team members in attendance. The meeting included a review of the student’s completion of all required high school credits, academic achievement, and functional performance. The team wrote up recommendations for meeting the student’s postsecondary goals. There was written notice documenting the student’s fulfillment of graduation requirements with enough time for the student to respond before graduation. After the filing of this complaint, the decision to graduate was put on hold. Therefore, the district has not ended special education eligibility through graduation.
Corrective Action
Within 30 days of the date of this decision, the IEP team must complete a comprehensive evaluation, including a new review of existing data to determine whether additional assessments are required. The team shall review all relevant documentation to determine the student’s disability-related needs, whether or not commonly linked to the disability category or categories for which the student meets eligibility criteria. A copy of the evaluation report and any new assessment reports shall be provided to the department within 10 days of the evaluation meeting.
Additionally, within 10 days of the evaluation meeting, the district and school are required to convene a new manifestation determination regarding the student’s behavior during the incident from April 13, 2025. During the meeting, the team shall review all relevant student records, including the student’s full IEP and any applicable information gathered from the comprehensive evaluation. Documentation of the team’s manifestation determination shall be provided to the department within 10 days of the meeting.
1. If the team finds that the student’s behavior was a manifestation of the student’s disability, the team must follow the directives within 34 CFR § 300.530(f).
2. If the team finds that the student’s behavior was not a manifestation of the student’s disability, the district and school may proceed with a disciplinary change of placement. If the district and school decide to move forward with graduation as a placement option, a new graduation review informed by the results of the comprehensive evaluation and manifestation determination must occur.
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