On May 27, 2025, the Department of Public Instruction (department) received a complaint under state and federal special education law from #### (parent and complainant) against the #### (district). This is the department’s decision regarding that complaint. The issue identified is whether the district, beginning May 27, 2024, properly implemented the student’s individualized education program (IEP) to address the student’s attendance.
School districts meet their obligation to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to each student with a disability, in part, by developing a program based on the student’s unique disability-related needs that is reasonably calculated to enable the student to make appropriate progress considering the student’s circumstances, documenting that program in the IEP, and implementing the program as articulated in the IEP. The IEP must contain annual goals that are both ambitious and achievable so that the gap between the student’s functioning and that of their peers in academic achievement or functional performance is narrowed or closed during the period of the IEP. 34 CFR §§ 300.320-300.324; Wis. Stat. § 115.78(2); Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 137 S.Ct. 988. Each student’s IEP must address the student's needs that result from the student's disability in order to enable the student to be involved and make appropriate progress in the general education curriculum and toward their IEP goals and meet the student's other educational needs that result from the student's disability.
The IEP must include a statement of the special education services to be provided to the student. 34 CFR §§ 300.320(a), 300.324(a). The IEP must be written in a manner that clearly describes the school district’s commitment of resources to the parent and all involved in developing and implementing the IEP. The IEP must be accessible to staff responsible for implementing the student’s IEP and staff must be informed of their specific responsibilities. IEPs must be implemented as written. 34 CFR § 300.323; Wis. Stat. § 115.787. After the annual IEP team meeting, changes to a student's IEP may be made either: 1) at an IEP team meeting; or 2) with agreement of the parent, the district may develop a written document to amend or modify the child's current IEP without holding a meeting. 34 CFR § 300.324(a)(4). However, a change of placement for a student must take place in an IEP team meeting. 34 CFR § 300.116; Wis. Stat. §§ 115.78(2)(c); 115.79.
In the case of a child whose behavior impedes the child'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). Districts 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). When a student’s school day is shortened, the student’s IEP must include an explanation of why the student’s disability-related needs require a shortened day, and a plan for the student’s return to school for a full day, including a plan to meet more frequently to review student data and determine whether the student is able to return to school full-time. 34 CFR § 300.116; DPI Special Education Information Update Bulletin 24.01.
The student who is the subject of this complaint was a sophomore at the start of the time period relevant to this complaint. The student attends school on a shortened school day put in place by their IEP team during a prior school year. The student has anxiety related to being in the school building and often struggles with negative self-thoughts. The student’s anxiety can manifest as physical pain. The IEP in effect at the conclusion of the student’s sophomore year identified causes for the anxiety and supports and accommodations intended to limit and address the anxiety. According to the IEP, the presence of more than two or three other students can increase the student’s anxiety. As a result, the student often did not attend school or left class and hid within the school building. The IEP called for breaks, preferential seating to not have peers on all sides, and the opportunity to go to a separate setting after lessons to work on assignments independently. One of the student’s four annual goals addressed classroom participation, increasing use of self-monitoring techniques, emotional regulation skills, and self-advocacy. The IEP called for 45 minutes daily of instruction in academic enhancement and study skills, 45 minutes daily in English specially designed instruction, and 45 minutes daily for alternate curriculum in a small group setting to address anxiety.
During the student’s sophomore year of high school, their attendance started at 1 p.m. and ended at 3:30 p.m. Upon the start of their junior year in 2024-25, the student’s schedule switched to mornings with an additional hour of time at school, leaving at 11:30 a.m. The student used both family transportation and a school bus at various times during the year. After the student had difficulty with riding a crowded bus, the district arranged for the bus provider to reserve a seat in the front for the student. School staff assisted the student when family transportation was no longer available. On September 23, 2024, the student’s IEP team met to revise the student’s IEP to provide for student exceptions to school rules in order to have permission to walk in the halls and use a personal phone with headphones. Over the course of the first term, the district marked the student absent from 42 class periods and tardy six times. The student’s other parent (not the complainant) excused 33 of these absences. The student’s schedule increased by two hours, starting November 25, 2024. Over the course of the second term, the district marked the student absent from 113 class periods and tardy nine times.
The IEP team met twice in late March so that both of their parents could participate in the annual IEP review meeting on March 24, 2025, and March 31, 2025. The district’s attendance specialist attended the meetings. The IEP team found that the student had met all four of their annual goals. District staff reported that the student was frequently staying in the classroom for the entire class period with one five-minute break. The IEP team increased the student’s three components of specially designed instruction (Academic Enhancement Study Skills, English, and Math) from 45 minutes per day each to 73 minutes per day each.
In the spring, the student was subject to truancy proceedings. The complainant reported the student’s attendance improved while the truancy proceedings were ongoing. Based on that improvement, the truancy action was closed. Over the course of the third term of the school year, the district marked the student absent for 72 class periods and tardy twice. On June 3, 2025, law enforcement visited the school to again investigate the student’s truancy. While the student had been marked present, the officer interviewed school staff and determined the student had entered the school to check in but had promptly left the school building. The officer concluded the student had been checking in and leaving the building through various exits since the beginning of April. The officer reinstated truancy proceedings.
District staff confirmed with the department that the student’s new attendance challenge in the spring was leaving the school. District staff reported that overall, the student’s ability to tolerate school had increased over the course of the school year. The student was able to attend a general education course and earn expected high school credits for the year. However, the parent reported that the student frequently failed tests for academic subjects and performed lower than previous years on statewide assessments.
The initial decision to begin a shortened day occurred prior to the time period relevant to this complaint, but the student’s IEPs in effect during this time continued to include a shortened school day. The IEP team had identified skills to help the student improve their attendance, but did not include a plan to meet more frequently to review student data to increase the student’s time in school. The student’s schedule and placement changed upon the first day of the 2024-25 school year. However, the IEP team did not meet to make and document those changes prior to them taking effect. The district reported that the student’s time in school increased on November 25, 2024, and March 10, 2025. The IEP team did not meet to make and document those placement changes. Given the shortened day and changes in placement, the IEP team was required to meet to document placement changes. The student’s current placement form inaccurately indicated the student was attending part-time in the afternoons from September to March. The district never documented the student’s identified transportation needs in the IEP. After the annual IEP team meeting, the student began exhibiting new elopement behavior that impacted time in the classroom. However, the IEP team did not meet to address the new behavior. The IEP was not developed in a manner that was sufficiently clear and accurate for it to be fully implementable. Therefore, the department cannot find that the district properly implemented it. The district did not properly implement the student’s IEP regarding attendance.
Corrective Action
Within 30 days of this decision, the IEP team shall meet and address all of the following objectives: 1) document all identified needs and related services in the IEP; 2) consider whether the student’s annual goals are sufficiently challenging to enable the student to make progress; 3) plan and accurately document the student’s placement for the beginning of the 2025-26 school year; and 4) determine whether compensatory services are required. The district shall provide documentation of the IEP team meeting within 15 days of the meeting.
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