On June 13, 2025, the Department of Public Instruction (department) received a complaint under state and federal special education law from #### (complainant) against the #### (district). This is the department’s decision regarding that complaint. The issues in the complaint, which pertain to the time period beginning March, 2025, are described below.
Whether the district properly determined the educational placement of six students with disabilities in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE).
In Wisconsin, placements of students with disabilities must be determined by Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams in conformity with LRE requirements. To the maximum extent appropriate, students with disabilities must be educated with students who are nondisabled. Each student’s placement determination 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 modifications needed 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.
The complainant is a former special education teacher in the school district and was assigned to teach an early childhood self-contained special education classroom during the period of time relevant to this complaint. The complainant alleges that the six students in the early childhood self-contained classroom were not appropriately placed in the least restrictive environment. The students who are the subject of this complaint are three and four years old. Each student was placed by their IEP team in the early childhood self-contained classroom. The three-year-old students attended school for half a day. The students’ IEPs indicate that due to their unique disability related needs, full-time placement in the self-contained early childhood classroom was appropriate. The four-year-old students, who were considered by the district to be at the 4K grade level, were placed in the self-contained early childhood classroom for a full day. The complainant expressed to the special education supervisor and building principal that all of the students in the self-contained classroom should be spending more time in the regular education classroom. All of the students’ IEPs contain documentation of various options for providing services in a less restrictive environment, including discussions of providing services in the regular education environment, and reasons for rejecting those options. The IEPs contain documentation that placement for each student was carefully considered and due to the unique disability-related needs of each student, the early childhood self-contained classroom was considered an appropriate placement by the IEP team. The district properly determined the educational placement of six students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment.
Whether the district properly implemented the students’ IEPs regarding occupational therapy, paraprofessional support, and specially designed instruction.
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).
Occupational Therapy (OT).
Five of the six students required OT services as documented in the IEPs. The complainant alleges that the district did not consistently provide the OT services as written in the students’ IEPs. The district was able to provide logs kept by OT staff that demonstrated they provided the appropriate amount and frequency of OT as specified in each student’s IEP. When services were missed due to a student or provider absence, additional minutes of service were provided during subsequent sessions to make up for the missed time. The district properly implemented the students’ IEPs regarding OT.
Paraprofessional Support.
Each of the students in the classroom required the provision of adult support according to their IEPs. The adult support was further described as providing assistance to students with doing such things as using the bathroom and support skills and strategies used in the classroom. The district assigned paraprofessionals to the classroom throughout the school day to help the teacher to provide this adult assistance. The paraprofessionals were assigned to the classroom rather than to a particular student. The complainant alleges that the paraeducators assigned to the classroom did not properly carry out their responsibilities. These responsibilities included taking students to lunch, recess, and specials, assisting students using the bathroom, and working with students on various classroom activities. The complainant explained they had to stop providing specially designed instruction in order to provide adult assistance to the students.
The complainant brought their concerns to the special education supervisor and the building principal. The special education supervisor provided suggestions on how the complainant could structure classroom activities, and how to review the activities and schedules with the paraeducators assigned to the classroom.
Given the circumstances of this case, the district provided sufficient levels of staffing to ensure the adult assistance described in the students’ IEPs was provided. While the complainant was dissatisfied with the performance of the paraprofessionals, there is no evidence that suggests the students’ IEPs were not implemented as written. Supervising and monitoring the performance of staff is a district personnel responsibility. The concerns raised by the complainant in this case do not rise to a violation of special education law.
Specially Designed Instruction (SDI).
The complainant alleges they were not given access to instructional materials to implement the curriculum utilized by the district. Emails provided by the complainant between the complainant and multiple district staff members show there was difficulty in the complainant getting access to the online curriculum materials. However, the complainant confirmed that despite the lack of access to the curriculum and materials, they provided specially designed instruction as written in the students’ IEPs for all six students. The special education supervisor also stated during an interview with department staff that they observed the teacher providing SDI on multiple occasions. The students’ June 2025 progress reports document that all six students were making adequate progress toward their annual IEP goals. The district properly implemented the students’ IEPs in regard to SDI.
Whether the district properly provided special education services using appropriately licensed staff.
Each school board must ensure every teacher, aide, or other professional staff holds a valid certificate, license, or permit issued by the department for the position for which the individual is employed. Special education services must be provided by properly licensed special education teachers. 34 CFR § 300.156; Wis. Stats § 118.19.
The complainant holds a one-year license with stipulations in early childhood special education. This is considered appropriate licensure for the teaching assignment in the early childhood special education self-contained classroom. During the time period relevant to the complaint, the district properly provided special education services using appropriately licensed staff.
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