IDEA Complaint Decision 25-065

On May 22, 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 in the complaint, which pertain to the time period beginning May 22, 2024, are described below.

 

Whether the district properly determined the need of a student with a disability for adapted physical education (APE).

Special education means specially designed instruction, including instruction in physical education. Specially designed instruction involves adaptation of the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction to address the unique needs of the student that result from the student’s disability, in order to ensure the student’s access to the general curriculum so the student can meet the general education standards that apply to all students. 34 C.F.R. § 300.39. Physical education services, specially designed, if necessary, must be made available to every student with a disability. Each student with a disability must be afforded the opportunity to participate in the regular physical education program available to nondisabled students unless the student needs specially designed physical education, as prescribed in the student’s individualized education program (IEP). If specially designed physical education is prescribed in a student's IEP, the district must provide the services directly or make arrangements for those services to be provided through other public or private programs. 34 CFR § 300.108. In Wisconsin, specially designed physical education is also called adapted physical education (APE). IEP teams must determine the extent to which the student can access the regular physical education program available to nondisabled peers, in addition to the extent to which physical education is required as specially designed instruction to meet the student’s unique needs. OSEP Policy Letter 21-01, May 12, 2021.

The student’s parent, who is the complainant, alleges that the IEP team did not appropriately consider and document the student’s need for APE. The student’s IEP dated March 27, 2024, requires specially designed instruction in the areas of reading, writing, and attending skills. The IEP also describes the student’s difficulties with handwriting, and requires the district to provide the student occupational therapy (OT) as a related service. The student received 30 minutes of OT, two times per month in the special education setting, and 30 minutes of OT, two times per month in the general education setting. Outside of school, the student also received physical therapy (PT) and OT from a private service provider. On September 13, 2024, the district received a request from the parent to initiate a reevaluation. The parent expressed concerns with the student’s functional vision skills and pragmatic language skills. The parent also wanted the IEP team to consider the disability area of autism. After the district initiated the reevaluation process, the parent inquired about also looking at the student’s need for adapted physical education. Several emails were exchanged between the parent, school psychologist and specially designed physical education (SDPE) teacher and the IEP team agreed they would assess object control skills and locomotor skills as part of the reevaluation. The parent provided their written consent for district staff to administer additional assessments on October 17, 2024.

On December 2, 2024, the IEP team, including the parent and an advocate, met to discuss the results of the reevaluation. Prior to the meeting, the parent shared a summary of an assessment conducted by the private OT and PT center including recent notes of the student’s progress. The private provider’s assessment indicated that the private OT found the student demonstrated improvement in their fine motor skills, and the private PT found the student improved their motor coordination and planning. The private provider recommended further sessions so the student could continue to improve their skills. This information was reviewed, discussed, and documented as part of the district’s reevaluation. The team also reviewed and discussed assessment data provided by the SDPE teacher, who assessed the student’s object control skills and locomotor movements. The evaluation report documents that the student was demonstrating skills that were developmentally appropriate for their grade level in comparison to his peers. The SPDE teacher acknowledged there were some skills the student had not yet mastered, but felt that those skills would emerge as the student continues to grow. The school-based PT conducted a functional mobility assessment as part of the reevaluation to assess the student’s gross motor skills and abilities. The school-based PT’s written report states the student has adequate strength and range of motion for everyday range of navigation and the activities required of the student throughout the school day. Although the school-based PT noted the student experienced some difficulties during an observation of the student during physical education class with more complex movements, such as jumping jacks, the report documents that the student is able to access the school environment safely and independently. The student’s parent did not agree with the findings of the adaptive physical education assessments and felt that the student was not able to fully participate in physical education (PE) class.

The student’s IEP team reconvened on December 16, 2024. Prior to the meeting, the parent requested via email that both the SDPE teacher and physical therapist attend this meeting so the team could fully discuss the parent’s concerns. During the meeting, the PT and SPDE teacher reviewed their observations and assessment data. The IEP team, with the exception of the parent, felt that the general education PE teacher was able to support the student during their general physical education classes. The parent still believed that the student required APE, noting that the assessment completed by the private center included scores indicating the student’s abilities to be similar to those of a five-year-old child. The student was eight years old at the time of the evaluation.

On March 21, 2025, the IEP team, including the student’s parent and their advocate, met for the student’s annual IEP. During this meeting, the parent again expressed concerns regarding APE, raising concerns about the district’s support of the student regarding their gross motor delays. The parent stated that the student’s challenges with bilateral coordination are a contributing factor to the student’s disability related needs in reading, writing and attention. The parent also felt that the IEP team’s denial of APE for the student was based on a single informal evaluation. To address these concerns, the IEP team agreed to conduct further observations during PE class and invite the general education PE teacher to a future IEP meeting to review and discuss data collected.

The IEP team, including the student’s parent and parent advocate met on May 8, 2025. The IEP team discussed their observations of the student during PE class and the student’s current skills based on general education PE standards. The parent shared concerns regarding the student’s bilateral coordination and how that skill was impacting other areas. To address those concerns, the IEP team agreed to increase the student’s school-based OT services from 30 minutes two times per month in the special education setting to 20 minutes per week in the special education setting. The parent continued to believe that the student’s disability related needs required APE. The IEP team explained that they could not add APE to the IEP without the SDPE teacher present. The parent requested an expedited reevaluation. The IEP team said they would consider whether to initiate an expedited reevaluation with new team members. On May 13, 2025, the district sent an M-1 form to the parent stating they would not conduct an expedited reevaluation as there was little time left to the school year, the student would need to be observed in the general education PE setting, and the district had already completed a reevaluation less than one year ago on December 2, 2024. On May 16, 2025, the parent requested an IEP team meeting and listed the names of several staff members they wanted present at the meeting. The district requested clarification about the purpose of the meeting and on May 20, 2025, the parent replied via email that they wanted to continue the discussion of APE. The district sent an M-1 form on May 20, 2025, refusing the request for an IEP meeting and stating the IEP team had already discussed APE during the meetings held on December 2, 2025, December 16, 2025, and May 8, 2025. The district properly determined the student's need for APE.

Whether the district properly provided the parent with prior written notice regarding the denial of APE eligibility.

 

Under federal and state special education law, any time a district proposes or refuses to initiate or change the special education 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.

 

On December 19, 2025, the district sent the parent a Determination and Notice of Placement form for the IEP that would be implemented on January 6, 2025. On February 28, 2025, the parent emailed the special education coordinator and pointed out that they had not received prior written notice regarding the IEP team’s consideration and rejection of APE services. The parent stated the prior written notice should be provided on the M-1 form (Notice of Response to an Activity Requested by a Parent). On March 7, 2025, the special education coordinator stated the IEP team did not include the information regarding the consideration and rejection of APE and let the parent know they would amend the Determination and Notice of Placement Page. District staff amended the Determination and Notice of Placement page on March 11, 2025, to include the IEP team’s consideration and rejection of APE, and provided the amended document to the parent. On May 12, 2025, the parent requested prior written notice for the consideration and rejection of APE to be provided on an M-1 form. The district complied with the parent’s request to use the M-1 form. However, prior written notice requirements are addressed in several IEP forms, including the Determination and Notice of Placement (P-1 or P-2). Although the district did not properly provide the parent with prior written notice regarding the denial of APE eligibility after the December 16, 2025 meeting, the district appropriately addressed the error when they amended the Determination and Notice of Placement form and sent the amended form to the parent. No additional corrective action is required.

 

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.