IDEA Complaint Decision 25-078

On June 3, 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 in the complaint, which pertain to the time period beginning June 3, 2024, are described below.

Whether the district properly implemented the student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) regarding adult proximity/supervision and positive behavior supports.

School districts must provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) to each student with a disability by developing a program that meets the student's unique needs, documenting that program in the IEP, and implementing the program as articulated in the IEP. The IEP must include a statement of the special education, related services, and supplementary aids and services to be provided to the child, including the projected date for the beginning of the services and the anticipated duration of the services. All services must be clearly stated in the IEP in a manner that can be understood by all involved in the development and implementation of the IEP. 34 CFR §§ 300.320(a)(4) and (a)(7). Districts must ensure that each service provider is informed of their specific responsibilities related to implementing each student's IEP and the specific accommodations, modifications, and supports the district must provide the student in accordance with the IEP. 34 CFR § 300.324(d). 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). If a student displays inappropriate behavior despite having an IEP that includes behavioral supports, this may indicate that the behavioral supports in the IEP are not being appropriately implemented or are not appropriate for the student. In these situations, the IEP team should meet to review whether the supports and services are being implemented or whether the supports and services are effective and revise the IEP accordingly. The IEP team should also consider whether a functional behavioral assessment is necessary to better understand the function of the student's behavior. It is critical that services and supports are designed to support the needs of students with disabilities and ensure FAPE are appropriately implemented to avoid an overreliance of exclusionary discipline in response to a student’s behavior. Questions and Answers: Addressing the Needs of Children with Disabilities and IDEA's Discipline Provisions, the United States Department of Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, July 19, 2022.

The student’s parent alleges the student’s IEP was not being properly implemented in regard to adult proximity and supervision and positive behavioral supports documented in the student’s Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP). The parent noted an incident that occurred on September 24, 2024, in which the student eloped from the playground during recess and was found near the parking lot. The student’s IEP in effect at this time included a supplementary aid and service for close adult supervision during academics, lunch, recess, and transitions. On October 9, 2024, the IEP team met to address the parent’s concerns. The team updated the IEP by adding language to the supplementary aid and service to include an adult within 2-3 feet of the student and/or holding the hand of an adult outside of the school building. On November 21, 2024, the IEP met to discuss parent concerns about the student eloping and becoming more aggressive toward peers. The IEP team developed a plan of interventions to use if the student eloped from the classroom. On February 27, 2025, the IEP team met to discuss an increase in physically aggressive behavior demonstrated by the student. The IEP team agreed to conduct a Functional Behavior Assessment (FBA) and revise the student’s BIP. On March 17, 2025, the IEP team reconvened to discuss the results of the FBA and revise the BIP. Through the implementation of the BIP, clear and consistent routines were put in place for the student, paired with visual schedules and prompts. The student was also taught to use a picture exchange system to help with communication as a replacement behavior for physical aggression. On May 19, 2025, the student’s general education teacher emailed the parent and stated the student had been pushing other students. A special education supervisor reviewed the data collected following the implementation of the BIP and shared with the parent that after the BIP had been implemented, the number of physically aggressive incidents had remained the same or decreased over time. Interviews with the special education supervisor, school principal and special education teacher confirm that the BIP was implemented as written. The district properly implemented the student’s IEP regarding adult proximity/supervision and positive behavior supports.

Whether the district improperly utilized seclusion and/or physical restraint with the student.

State law prohibits the use of seclusion and/or physical restraint with students at school unless a student's behavior presents a clear, present, and imminent risk to the physical safety of the student or others and is the least restrictive intervention feasible. This law applies to public and certain private schools, including any private school where a school district places a student via their IEP team. Physical restraint means a restriction that immobilizes or reduces the ability of a student to freely move their torso, arms, legs, or head. If physical restraint is used, the degree of force and the duration of the physical restraint may not exceed the degree and duration that are reasonable and necessary to resolve the clear, present, and imminent risk to the physical safety of the student or others. Physical restraint may only be used if there are no medical contraindications to its use, and any restraint hold used must not cause chest compression or obstruct the student’s circulation or breathing, must give adequate attention to protecting the student’s head, and may not place students in a prone (face down) position. Seclusion means the involuntary confinement of a student, apart from other students, in a room or area from which the student is physically prevented from leaving. Wis. Stats. §§ 118.305(2) and 118.305 (3). After each instance of seclusion or restraint, no later than one business day after the incident, the district must notify the student's parent of the incident and, within three business days of the incident, send a written report to the student's parent containing the student's name, the date, time, and duration of the use of seclusion or physical restraint; a description of the incident including a description of the actions of the pupil before, during, and after the incident; and the names and titles of the covered individuals and any law enforcement officers present during the incident. Wis. Stat. § 118.305(4).

 

On April 22, 2025, the parent alleges they witnessed an incident of the student being restrained when they arrived at the school midday to pick the student up. On April 24, 2025, the parent expressed concerns to the school principal via email and asked for documentation of the incident. The principal did not respond to the parent’s email but spoke with the parent in person a few weeks after the incident occurred. The principal shared in an interview with department staff that the student was attempting to climb a counter in the main office. The student has a history of climbing and jumping off objects and the principal stated they were concerned about the student’s safety. The principal stood to the side of the student and placed their hands on the student’s shoulders to redirect the student from climbing up the counter. The special education teacher was present during this incident and was able to confirm the principal’s account of what occurred. The special education teacher noted that the student was not prevented from moving freely and the entire incident happened within a few seconds. When the student noticed the parent had arrived, they turned away from the counter and went to the parent. The district did not improperly utilize seclusion and/or physical restraint with the student.

 

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.