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 are described below and pertain to the period of time beginning May 29, 2024.
The student who is the subject of this complaint currently attends the district’s high school. The student enrolled in the district on April 12, 2024. During the time period relevant to this complaint, the student’s individualized education program (IEP) team met on August 21, 2024, to complete a reevaluation and develop an annual IEP, on October 25, 2024, to review and revise the student’s IEP, and on December 4, 2024, to review the student’s IEP. The meeting on December 4, 2024, ended before any team decisions were finalized and consequently no changes were made to the student’s IEP. The team met again on April 16, 2025, and continued the meeting on April 18, 2025, to complete the student’s annual IEP.
Whether the district properly conducted a meeting of the student’s IEP team by including all required participants.
A student’s IEP team must include the student’s parents, not less than one regular education teacher of the student, not less than one special education teacher of the student, a representative of the school district with the authority to commit district resources, and at the discretion of the parent or district other individuals who have knowledge of the student. 34 CFR § 300.321(a). Prior to the IEP team meeting, the school district must provide the parent with a notice indicating the purpose, time, and location of the meeting and who will be in attendance. 34 CFR § 300.322(b)(i). A required member of an IEP team may be excused from the meeting if the parents and the district agree to the excusal in writing. A written excusal is not required for team members attending at the discretion of the parent or district. 34 CFR § 300.321(e). However, if a non-required participant is included in the notice of the IEP team meeting, the student’s parent expects them to attend. In the event a participant will not attend or must leave the meeting early, district staff should inform the parents prior to, or at the beginning of, the meeting. This notice can be verbal or written.
At an IEP team meeting held for the student on August 21, 2024, the regular education teacher of the student serving in the required role on the student’s IEP team left the meeting before it ended. There was no other regular education teacher on the team and the parent did not agree in writing to the teacher’s excusal. Additionally, at IEP team meetings held for the student on October 25, 2024, December 4, 2024, April 16, 2025, and April 18, 2025, several non-required IEP team participants who had been included on the IEP team meeting notices sent to the parents either left the meetings early or did not attend at all. District staff informed the student’s parents of these non-required IEP team participants’ absences in advance in each case.
The district agrees that it did not properly excuse the regular education teacher from the August 21, 2024, IEP team meeting. The district has agreed to provide training for staff on IEP meeting excusal procedures. The district will provide this training prior to the start of the 2025-26 school year and will provide the department with a copy of the training material and list of participants by September 20, 2025.
Whether the district properly provided the student’s parents reports of the progress the student was making toward attaining annual goals as required by their IEP.
Each student’s IEP must include a statement of when periodic reports on the progress the student is making towards the annual goals will be provided. 34 CFR § 300.320(a)(3). Reports must be provided to the parent as specified in each goal.
The student’s August 21, 2024, which was implemented on September 9, 2024, stated that reports of the student’s progress towards annual goals would be provided monthly. The IEP team changed the frequency of reports to quarterly at the October 25, 2024, IEP team meeting.
Evidence reviewed by the department shows the district provided quarterly progress reports to the parent as scheduled which contained sufficient data aligned with the student’s baseline and level of attainment set out in the annual goals. The evidence shows that the district provided the parent’s updates on the student’s progress during the month of September but did not provide formal progress reports for that month as specified in the IEP. No student specific corrective action is required as the parent has been provided several appropriate reports of progress since September 2024. Before the beginning of the 2025-26 school year, the district shall provide staff training on providing progress reports as specified in student IEPs. The district shall provide the department with a copy of the training materials and a list of attendees no later than September 30, 2025.
Whether the district properly implemented the student’s IEP regarding assignment modifications and math resource support.
School districts meet their obligation to provide FAPE to each student with a disability, in part, by developing and implementing each student's IEP as it is written. Staff responsible for implementing the student's IEP must be informed of their specific responsibilities. 34 CFR §300.323 and Wis. Stat. §115.787.
The student’s IEP developed on August 21, 2024, identified that the student would be provided math support 30 minutes per day in the regular education classroom, and modified assignments, “recognizing that quality is preferred over quantity” whenever assignments are given, as supplementary aids or services. These services continued to be documented in the IEPs developed October 25, 2024, and April 18, 2025.
The evidence reviewed by the department showed that the district provided the student 30 minutes of math support per day. On some occasions, when the student asked to be excused from the regular education classroom, the math support was provided in the special education classroom. This issue will be addressed further in the least restrictive environment (LRE) section below.
The evidence demonstrates that the student’s teachers made good faith efforts to work with the student to modify assignments to reduce the quantity of items to be completed. However, the description of assignment modifications does not clearly describe how the IEP team intended the student’s assignments to be modified, therefore the department cannot determine that the IEP has been properly implemented. Prior to the start of the 2025-26 school year, the student’s IEP team must meet to clarify and appropriately document how the student’s assignments will be modified. The district is directed to provide the department with a copy of the revised IEP within 10 days of the meeting.
Whether the district properly developed the student’s IEP regarding measurable annual goals and positive behavior supports.
Each student’s IEP team must develop a statement of annual goals for the student designed to meet the student’s needs to enable the student to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum. Annual goals must be measurable and designed to address the student's disability-related needs. Each goal must contain a baseline from which the student’s progress can be measured and a measurable expected level of attainment. Each annual goal must also include a statement of how the student's progress toward achieving the goal will be measured. 34 CFR §300.320(a), Wis. Stats. § 115.782(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).
The student’s IEP developed in August 2024 identifies the student’s disability-related needs as behavior/self- management, math calculation, and reading comprehension. The team developed four goals aligned with the student’s disability-related needs. Two goals were related to behavior/self-management, one was for reading comprehension and one for math calculation. Each goal contains a baseline, a measurable level of attainment, and specifies procedures for measuring the student’s progress. These goals continued in effect until the IEP team meetings held in April 2025.
At the April 16 and 18, 2025, IEP team meetings, the IEP teams revised the student’s annual goals. The IEP team developed six goals (four related to behavior/self-management, one for reading comprehension, and one for math calculation). Each goal contains a baseline, a measurable level of attainment, and specifies procedures for measuring the student’s progress toward attaining the goals. The district properly developed the student’s IEP regarding measurable annual goals.
The student’s IEP team has consistently identified behavior as a special factor that affects the student’s learning or that of others. The team concluded that the student had difficulty interacting with peers, would become distracted, and demonstrated impulsiveness and attention-seeking behavior. The team specified that the student should be encouraged to take breaks when feeling distracted. The student was provided with social skills instruction, psychological services, and counseling to address these issues. A behavior intervention plan (BIP) called for positive reinforcement, structured breaks, and visual supports. The parent, concerned that the student was not making adequate progress, requested that the IEP team conduct a functional behavioral assessment (FBA). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) only requires FBAs in certain disciplinary contexts which do not apply to the student. The parent initially requested an FBA during the summer of 2024 and raised the request again at each IEP team meeting. Initially the district responded that there was insufficient data to conduct a behavioral analysis as the student had only been in the district since April 12, 2024, and only in an off-site placement until the end of the school year. As the 2024-25 school year progressed, the IEP team reconsidered the parent’s request at each IEP team meeting. In the view of the school members of the IEP team there were no new behaviors to analyze beyond what had already been identified by the team, and that the student was managing well with the existing behavior supports and interventions. At one point the student began to have difficulty being on time for their first hour class and the district made a schedule change which improved the student’s on-time performance. In responding to the parent’s requests to consider the student’s behavior, the district properly developed the student’s IEP regarding behavior supports.
Whether the district properly determined the student’s placement in the least restrictive environment (LRE).
To the maximum extent appropriate, students with disabilities must be educated with students who are nondisabled. Each student’s placement must be based on the student’s individual needs as specified in the IEP; be determined at least annually; be as close as possible to the student’s home; and, unless the student requires some other arrangement, in the school the student would attend if not disabled. Students with disabilities should not be removed from education in an age-appropriate regular education classroom solely because of needed modifications in the general education curriculum. Removal from the regular education environment should only occur 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. The IEP team must document its placement decision, including its consideration of LRE, in the IEP. Wis. Stat. § 115.79; 34 CFR §§ 300.114 - 300.116.
As noted above, on some occasions the student was provided with math support in the special education environment when the IEP had specified these services to be provided in the regular education classroom. In addition, the student’s schedule change designed to address the student’s attendance issues resulted in the student spending more time in a special education environment as compared to before the change. The evidence demonstrates that these placement changes were discussed by the IEP team at various times and in the case of the delivery of math supports was the product of the student using the breaks specified in the IEP and BIP. However, these removals were not clearly documented in the IEP in the program summary or the statement of extent of removal. As a consequence, there is insufficient documentation that the team considered whether the student needs could have been met in the regular education environment with the use of supplementary aids and services. As part of its IEP team meeting prior to the start of the 2025-26 school year, the student’s IEP team must revise the IEP to appropriately document the student’s placement including a clear statement of the extent of removal from the regular education environments, other options considered, and the reasons for rejecting those options. The district is directed to provide the department with a copy of the IEP within 10 days of the IEP team 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