On June 5, 2025 (form dated June 4, 2025), the Department of Public Instruction (department) received a complaint under state and federal special education law from #### (complainants) against the #### (district). This is the department’s decision regarding that complaint. The issues identified are included in the narrative below and pertain to the period of time beginning April 10, 2025.
The student who is the subject of this complaint moved to the state of Wisconsin during the month of January, 2025. The student attended school in their first Wisconsin school district for approximately 20 school days. Starting March 13, 2025, the student attended a school operated by the Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHS). On Thursday, April 10, 2025, the student moved to a foster home located in the boundaries of the district that is the subject of this complaint.
On Friday, April 11, 2025, the student’s foster parent notified the district that the student had moved into their home and that the student would be attending school in the district. District staff sent an email to the foster parent and a county representative that afternoon explaining that the district did not have classes the following week due to spring break. The district reported it had requested student records from DHS but would likely not be able to review them until Monday, April 21, 2025. The district proposed the student tour the school on Monday, April 21, 2025, and begin attending the following day. The original county caseworker replied on Monday, April 14, 2025, indicating agreement with the district’s plan. The caseworker informed district staff that the student had an Individualized Education Program (IEP) and offered to provide information about the student to the district if the student’s biological parent signed a release of information. Later that afternoon, school staff scheduled the tour for the following Tuesday, April 22, 2025, with attendance starting on Wednesday, April 23, 2025.
The student toured the school and district staff held an informal meeting with the student’s foster parent on April 22, 2025. The district concedes this was not a meeting of the student’s IEP team. During the meeting, the district decided the student would begin attending school on a shortened school day, although the student had always attended school for full days in their previous school placements.
District staff convened another informal meeting with district staff, county staff, the foster parent and biological parent on May 22, 2025. At the meeting, participants discussed the student’s behavior needs, social needs, and whether to continue the shortened day for the remaining eight and one-half days in the 2024-25 school year. Some in the meeting argued that a shortened school day was no longer appropriate for the student, but all agreed with the district’s proposal to meet as an IEP team over the summer to develop a plan for the student to begin the 2025-26 school year attending full school days.
After the May 22, 2025, informal meeting, the district prepared a revised IEP documenting the student’s shortened day arrangement. The district also developed a form documenting that the changes had been made to the student’s IEP outside of a meeting. This form listed several participants from the informal meeting indicating they agreed with the changes, including the meeting attendees who argued against a shortened day. District staff, county staff, the foster parent and biological parent again met informally on July 23, 2025, to discuss the student’s full time placement in an alternative program designed to take effect at the beginning of the 2025-26 school year.
Whether the district properly identified who was authorized to make special education decisions for the student.
In circumstances when a biological or adoptive parent is either not available or not legally authorized to make educational decisions on behalf of a student, school districts are responsible for determining who is legally authorized to fulfill that role for the purpose of special education decision-making. Foster parents are typically not authorized in Wisconsin to make educational decisions on behalf of their foster children unless the right and the responsibility of the biological parents to make educational decisions concerning a child have been extinguished by termination of parental rights or by other court order. School districts should appoint a surrogate parent for a student with a disability whenever the student’s parents are not known, the district cannot locate the student’s parents after reasonable efforts, or the student is a ward of the state. An employee of any agency involved in the care of a student cannot serve as the student’s surrogate parent. Wis. Stat. §§ 115.76(12)(a) and 115.792(1)(a).
A court order granted the county department temporary physical custody of the student, but did not extinguish or transfer the biological parent’s rights to make educational decisions concerning the student. District staff indicated that the foster parent did not mention a biological parent to the district in their first communication on April 11, 2025, but the district was aware the student lived in a foster home. County staff contacted the district on Monday, April 14, 2025, which was the next business day, to inform them the student had a biological parent who needed to sign a release of information before county staff could speak freely to the district. The district requested the biological parent’s contact information on May 8, 2025. A county social worker reported providing it the following day.
The biological parent has since been included in district communications and has participated in educational decision-making. However, in making decisions about placement for the student with the foster parent, the district did not properly determine who was authorized to make special education decisions for the student.
Whether the district properly followed special education transfer procedures.
When a student with a disability transfers between Wisconsin school districts, the receiving district, in consultation with the student's parent, must provide a free appropriate public education without delay, including special education and related services comparable to those described in the most recent IEP until the receiving district either 1) adopts the student's IEP (including the evaluation and eligibility determination) from the previous district and provides the parents with an updated placement notice; 2) adopts the child's evaluation and eligibility determination from the previous district and conducts an IEP team meeting to review and revise the IEP, or 3) develops and implements a new IEP. Wis. Stat. § 115.782(4)(b). If the receiving LEA cannot implement all services specified in the sending district's IEP, it must provide services comparable to those described in the student's IEP and hold an IEP team meeting to develop its own IEP as soon as possible after the student enrolls. 34 CFR § 300.323(e). The receiving district may implement the special education and related services in the new IEP after providing proper notice to the parent.
Enrolling the student on April 21, 2025, and providing a school tour the following day prior to attending classes was reasonable given the date of the student’s arrival, the district’s academic calendar, and the student’s unique circumstances. However, the district should have begun providing the student services comparable to those in their previous IEP for the full school day and convened an IEP team meeting as soon as possible. The district did not properly follow special education transfer procedures.
Whether the district properly determined the educational placement of a student with a disability, including improperly shortening the student’s school day.
Placements of students with disabilities must be determined 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. 34 CFR §§ 300.114 - 300.116. It is not appropriate to shorten the school day for a student with a disability unless the student’s IEP team determines a shortened day is required to address the student’s unique, disability-related needs. This should occur only in rare circumstances, and in most cases, a shortened school day should be in place for only a limited amount of time. 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. Shortened school days may not be used to manage student behavior or as a substitute for discipline. 34 CFR § 300.116; DPI Special Education Information Update Bulletin 24.01. 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.
After a student’s annual IEP team meeting, changes to a student's IEP may be made either at an IEP team meeting, or upon agreement of the parent and the district, the district may develop a written document to amend or modify the student's current IEP without holding a meeting. 34 CFR § 300.324(a)(4). Under Wisconsin law, changes of placement for students with disabilities may only take place in an IEP team meeting. 34 CFR § 300.116 Wis. Stats. §§ 115.78(2)(c); 115.79.
The district erred in several respects regarding the student’s placement. The district should have adopted and implemented the IEP from the student’s previous schools or expeditiously convened an IEP team of their own to revise the IEP and placement. The district should not have made changes to the student’s placement without holding an IEP team meeting. The district did not properly determine the student’s placement and improperly shortened the student’s school day.
Whether the district properly held meetings of the student’s IEP team, including all required participants.
The parent of a student with a disability may request an IEP team meeting at any time, and the district should grant any reasonable request for an IEP team meeting. If the district denies the parent's request for an IEP team meeting, the district must provide the parent with a notice of refusal in writing and include an explanation of why the district refuses to grant the request. 34 CFR § 300.503. School districts must take steps to ensure that the parent of a student with a disability is present at each IEP team meeting or is afforded the opportunity to participate, including notifying scheduling the meeting at a mutually agreed time. 34 CFR § 300.321(a). Prior to an IEP team meeting, a district must provide notice to the parent of the purpose, time, and location of the IEP team meeting, including a list of who will attend the IEP team meeting. 34 CFR § 300.322.
School districts must ensure the IEP team for each student with a disability includes at least one regular education teacher of the student, a special education teacher of the student, and a Local Educational Agency (LEA) representative who has the knowledge and authority to commit district resources. A required IEP team participant may be excused from attending an IEP team meeting, in whole or in part, when the meeting involves a modification to, or discussion of, the participant’s area of the curriculum or related services if, in writing, the parent and the district agree to the excusal, and the IEP team participant submits written input into the development of the IEP prior to the meeting. Only required IEP team participants need to be excused in writing. 34 CFR § 300.321.
The district was required to convene an IEP team meeting to change placement. That violation has been addressed above. Since the district did not hold an IEP team meeting, the department will not make a finding on this issue.
Corrective Action
Within 30 days of this decision, the student’s IEP team shall formally meet to: 1) properly consider and document full-time placement in the least restrictive environment for the student and services for the 2025-26 school year and 2) determine whether compensatory services are required for any missed instruction for the student during the improperly shortened schedule during the 2024-25 school year. Within 10 days of the meeting, the district shall provide the department with a copy of the student’s IEP.
Within 30 days of this decision, the district must submit to the department a proposed corrective action plan with the following components:
1) Ensure staff understand their responsibility to determine who is authorized to act as the parent of a child with a disability;
2) Ensure district staff understand the proper procedures to follow when a student with an IEP transfers into the district;
3) Ensure the district conducts compliant IEP team meetings, including scheduling meetings at a mutually agreeable time, providing proper notice, proper excusal of required IEP team members, and meeting for all placement changes; and
4) Ensure no shortened days occur in the district unless a student’s IEP team determines a shortened day is required to address the student’s unique, disability-related needs, with a compliant explanation and a plan for the student’s return to school for a full day as soon as possible.
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 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (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