On May 29, 2025, the Department of Public Instruction (department) received a complaint under state and federal special education law from ####
(parent) against the #### (district). This is the department’s decision regarding that complaint. The issues identified are described below and pertain to the 2024-25 school year.
Whether the district properly developed and implemented the individualized education program (IEP) of a student with a disability regarding positive behavior supports.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and its implementing regulations require IEP teams to consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports and other strategies to address behaviors that interfere with the student’s learning or the learning of others. 34 CFR § 300.324(a)(2)(i). Positive behavioral interventions and supports must be appropriate for the individual student.
During the 2024-25 school year, the student who is the subject of this complaint was in 10th grade at the district high school. The student has disabilities in the areas of autism and speech and language impairment. In the complaint, the parent alleged the district was not implementing the supports required by the student’s IEP and as a result, the student’s behavior had regressed. The parent requested an alternative placement for the student in a private school that specialized in working with students with behavior problems.
At the IEP team meeting on December 5, 2024, the team determined that the student needed supplementary aids and services including adult assistance for prompting, reteaching, and work completion. The team noted the student could work independently on some tasks. The IEP states the student was working to be more independent within the school environment to be able to transition throughout the building to their classes. In addition, the IEP described assistive technology in the form of a communication system and classroom accommodations would help the student’s self-regulation. These included frequent breaks, visuals, fidgets, copy of notes, preferential seating, text to speech, small group setting for work and assessments, and extended time on work. The IEP also included modifications to assignments and pass/fail grading.
The parent raised concern that the student did not always have a one-to-one support person. Although the IEP did not require the student to have one-to-one support every minute of the school day, the student was provided the one-to-one support as written in the IEP. The district properly developed and implemented the student’s IEP regarding positive behavior supports.
Whether the district properly implemented special education discipline provisions.
Under Wisconsin law, a student may be suspended for up to five school days for conduct that violates a district's code of student conduct. Federal special education law provides protections for students with disabilities who are subject to disciplinary changes in placement. A disciplinary change of placement occurs when a district removes a student's from school for more than 10 consecutive school days or when a series of removals constitutes a pattern because the removals total more than 10 school days in a school year, the behavior is substantially similar to the behavior in previous incidents, and if additional considerations such as the length of each removal, the total amount of time the student has been removed, and close proximity of the removals to one another apply. 34 CFR §300.536(a). 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 district must conduct a manifestation determination. 34 CFR § 300.536.
On October 14, 2024, the student became dysregulated during a community outing and flipped a table hitting another student and a district staff member. The next day, the student threw a water bottle against the wall of a classroom. The IEP team met to discuss the student’s behavior on October 17, 2024. The IEP team determined that although the student had not required a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) or behavior intervention plan (BIP) in the past, given the changes in the student’s behaviors they would initiate the process to develop both.
On November 13, 2024, the student received a one-day out-of-school suspension after hitting two staff members on their arms. The principal determined the days of suspension for the incident and notified the parent.
The student’s IEP team met on December 5, 2024, to hold an IEP team meeting to finalize the FBA and BIP. The IEP team discussed environmental concerns that could be contributing to the student’s to increased aggression. The IEP team suggested interventions to help the student manage anger and prevent agitation. The IEP team also reviewed the student’s schedule and supports.
On February 25, 2025, the student was suspended again after hitting staff three times in the same day. This five-day suspension occurred on February 26, 2025, through March 5, 2025. On March 19, 2025, the student hit a staff member several times on both arms and was suspended for two days on March 20 and 21, 2025.
After the March 20 and 21, 2025 suspensions, the district had removed the student from school for eight cumulative days in the 2024-25 school year. Eight days of cumulative disciplinary removal does not constitute a disciplinary change in placement. As such, a manifestation determination was not required. However, on April 1, 2025, the student’s IEP team met to conduct a manifestation determination and review and revise and revise the student’s IEP. Staff discussed the student’s behavior and reviewed its relationship to the student’s disabilities of autism and speech and language. The team reviewed the incidents, observations, academic records, special education records, behavioral data and supports. The team reviewed attendance data and input from the student’s parent. The team determined the incidents were directly related to the student’s disability and were a manifestation of the student’s disability of autism. The IEP team reviewed the BIP and then discussed the student’s need for instruction on relationships and personal space.
Although it was not required, the district properly conducted the manifestation determination. The district did not improperly implement special education discipline provisions.
Whether the district improperly shortened the student’s day.
To the maximum extent appropriate, school districts must ensure students with disabilities are educated with their peers who do not have disabilities. Special classes, separate schooling, or other removals of students with disabilities from the regular educational environment should occur only if the nature or severity of a student's disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. 34 CFR § 300.114(a)(2). Under Wisconsin law, each student's IEP team determines the student's placement. Wis. Stat. § 115.78(2). It is only appropriate to shorten the length of the school day for a student with a disability if the student’s IEP team determines a shortened day is required to address the student’s unique disability-related needs. This should be a very rare occurrence. Before deciding to shorten the student’s day, the IEP team must consider if there are other ways to meet the student’s needs. 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. The student should return to a full school day as soon as they are able, and under most circumstances, a shortened school day should be in place for a limited amount of time. Shortened school days may not be used to manage student behavior or as a means of discipline. A school district may not require a student to "earn" back the return to a longer or full school day by demonstrating good behavior. 34 CFR § 300.116; DPI Special Education Information Update Bulletin 24.01. Sending the student home, shortening the student’s day, or other types of removals may result in a denial of or the failure to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education.
From September 2024 until March 2025, the student attended most classes in regular education environments. The student also received a portion of specially designed instruction in a special education setting. At the March 6, 2025, IEP meeting, the IEP team agreed to change the student’s placement to spending the majority of time in the special education setting to devote more time to working on the student’s social and functional skills instruction.
Following the parent’s request to place the student in an offsite alternative program at the March 2025 IEP meeting, district staff began contacting outside programs in the area to determine what options might be available for the student. District staff learned there were limited options that would be appropriate for the student.
On April 1, 2025, the student’s IEP team met and discussed the increasing frequency and intensity of the student’s aggressive behaviors toward staff. The student’s parent shared information that the student also demonstrated increasing behaviors at home. The parent again requested the district place the student in an alternative placement in a private school. Given the limited options staff were able to identify after contacting outside programs, the IEP team instead decided to attempt a limited trial of a shortened school day of two 45-minute periods per day. They believed the student was not physically able to stay regulated for an entire school day. The placement notice included with the revised IEP indicated the reduced day would enable the student to focus on communication, social skills, regulation, and safety. The team also wrote it would continue to meet every two to three weeks to increase the student’s time and access to peers.
The IEP team met again on April 15, 2025. The team reviewed information they gathered using an antecedent behavior consequences chart to identify triggering behaviors. The team reviewed data and then increased the student’s day to three periods. Staff felt the data demonstrated that the student was able to stay regulated during the two period school day, and increasing the length of the day was appropriate. The IEP was implemented on April 21, 2025, until May 5, 2025.
The IEP team met again virtually on May 6, 2025. Staff shared that the student’s behavior was often positive, but the student was still not able to manage unexpected changes to routine without intensive support. The team decided to continue three periods per day for the student’s school day and reviewed and revised the support measures in place for the student. The school year for all students ended in late May. The district’s use of a shortened school day in this case was reasonable as they determined the student’s disability-related need to regulate their behavior. The shortened day was in place for a short period of time and the team reconvened soon after it was implemented to review student data to determine whether the shortened day was effective. Upon reviewing the data, the team increased the student’s school day. The district did not improperly shorten the student’s school day.
Whether the district properly determined the student’s placement.
To the maximum extent appropriate, school districts must ensure students with disabilities are educated with children who are nondisabled. Special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment should be used only if the nature or severity of a student’s disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. 34 CFR § 300.114(a)(2). In providing or arranging for the provision of nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities, including meals, recess periods, and other services and activities, each public agency must ensure that each child with a disability participates with nondisabled children in these services and activities to the maximum extent appropriate to the needs of that child. 34 CFR § 300.117. A change of placement for a student must take place in an IEP team meeting. 34 CFR § 300.116 Wis. Stats. §§ 115.78(2)(c); 115.79. In Wisconsin, placements of students with disabilities must be determined by IEP teams in conformity with least restrictive environment (LRE) requirements. LRE requires that students with disabilities receive their education in the regular classroom environment to the maximum extent appropriate or, to the extent that such placement is not appropriate, in an environment with the least possible amount of segregation from the students' nondisabled peers and community. 34 CFR §§ 300.114 - 300.116.
The student’s IEP team met frequently during the school year to review the student’s progress in light of increased behavioral incidents. The team adjusted behavioral supports and made changes to the student’s placement only after considering the effectiveness of the interventions. The team met frequently and made careful decisions about the student’s least restrictive environment as they monitored the student’s changing needs. Although the student’s parent repeated their request for the student to be placed in a private alternative school, the IEP team explained that such a placement was very restrictive. The district’s gradual approach to changing the student’s placement was appropriately responsive to the student’s needs. It will be important for the IEP team to continue to carefully review the student’s needs and progress and work to increase the student’s amount of time in school and time spent with their peers without disabilities. The district properly determined the student’s placement.
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