On June 18, 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 this complaint. The issues identified are identified below and apply to the period of time beginning June 18, 2024.
Whether the district properly conducted special education evaluations.
The purpose of a special education evaluation is to determine whether the student qualifies as a student with a disability in need of specially designed instruction and the nature and extent of the student’s educational needs. Referrals for evaluations must be in writing and include the student’s name and the reasons why the parent believes the student is a student with a disability. Upon receipt of a referral, the district must appoint an Individualized Education Program (IEP) team, and the IEP team must conduct a review of existing data to determine what additional data, if any, are needed to complete the evaluation. 34 CFR §§ 300.503(a)(1), 300.305(a); Wis. Stat. §§ 115.792(2), 115.782(2)(b). An IEP team meeting must be conducted to determine eligibility within 60 days after receiving parental consent for evaluation or notifying the parent that no additional assessments are needed. 34 CFR § 300.301(c); Wis. Stat. § 115.78(3)(a). 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 the parent of the meetings early enough to ensure that there will be an opportunity to attend, and scheduling the meeting at a mutually agreed time and place. 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 be in attendance at the IEP team meeting. 34 CFR § 300.322.
The complaint involves seven student evaluations and concerns regarding eligibility decisions.
The parent of Student A initiated a referral for special education evaluation on November 1, 2024, for ongoing concerns about the student’s behavior and recent behavioral health diagnoses. The evaluation team reviewed existing data and determined they would gather additional information through behavior rating scales, observations, tests of academic achievement, and interviews with parents, teachers, and the student. On February 10, 2025, the IEP team reviewed the results of the information gathered and determined the student met eligibility criteria for Other Health Impairment.
The parent of Student B initiated a referral for special education evaluation on February 7, 2025, for concerns about the student’s grades and increased behaviors resulting in discipline referrals. The evaluation team reviewed existing data and determined they would gather additional information through observations in the student’s learning environment, rating scales, record review, and interviews with the parent and student. On April 15, 2025, the IEP team reviewed the results of the information gathered and determined the student met eligibility criteria for Other Health Impairment.
A district staff member initiated a referral for Student C on November 22, 2024, as a result of 13 behavior referrals that occurred between October 3, 2024, to November 18, 2024. The parent had additional concerns about the student’s ability to control their emotions, attention in class, and work completion. The evaluation team reviewed existing data and determined they would gather additional information via rating scales, observations, tests of academic skills, and interviews with the parent, teachers, and the student. On January 14, 2025, the IEP team reviewed the additional information collected and determined the student did not meet disability criteria for special education.
A district staff member initiated a referral for Student D on March 31, 2025, due to concerns regarding the student’s increasingly unsafe behaviors, dysregulation, and struggles with reading at school. The evaluation team reviewed existing data and determined they would gather additional information through behavior resting scales, tests of academic achievement, observations, and interviews with teachers, the student’s guardian, and the student. On April 25, 2025, the team reviewed results of the information gathered and determined the student met eligibility criteria for Other Health Impairment.
The parent of Student D initiated a referral for special education on January 17, 2025, due to a history of the student’s struggles with focus, behavior, fluctuating grades, and overall disengagement from school. The evaluation team reviewed existing data and determined they would gather additional information through behavior rating scales, a social/developmental history, academic achievement tests, behavioral scale of executive functioning, and interviews with the parent, teachers, and student. On April 11, 2025, the team reviewed results of the information gathered and determined the student met eligibility criteria for Other Health Impairment.
Student E and Student F’s evaluations occurred more than one year from the date the department received the complaint, and thus are not timely to be considered as part of this investigation.
The parent of Student G initiated a referral for special education on October 1, 2024, as a result of concerns regarding the student’s behavior dating back to third grade. The parent expressed concerns regarding the student’s anxiety, lashing out, yelling, confronting peers, crying to the point of vomiting, and concerns regarding the student’s math and reading comprehension skills. The evaluation team reviewed existing data and determined additional information would be gathered via student, teacher, and parent interviews, observations, behavior rating scales, and academic assessments. On April 10, 2025, the team reviewed the results of the information gathered and determined the student met eligibility criteria for Other Health Impairment.
The complainant raised specific concerns about the eligibility determinations made for Student B and Student D. District staff indicated that the complainant did not bring these concerns forth during the eligibility meetings. District staff explained that the full IEP team, including the complainant, agreed on the eligibility determination reached at each of the students’ evaluation meetings. Further, documentation provided by the district established proper procedures had been followed. Specifically, all areas of concern and assessments aligned with each had been assessed with parent/guardians informed and involved throughout the process. The district properly conducted special education evaluations for all seven students.
Whether the district improperly made changes to a student’s IEP and properly provided written notice of changes to a student’s IEP.
Prior written notice must be given to the parents of a child with a disability a reasonable time before the district proposes or refuses to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child or the provision of Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) to the student. Among several required components, this notice must include a description of the action proposed or refused by the district, an explanation of why the district proposes or refuses to take the action, and a description of other options that the IEP team considered and the reasons why those options were rejected. 34 CFR § 300.503. Following a change to a student's IEP, district staff may provide proper prior written notice by providing parents with a copy of the finalized IEP and placement page before implementing the changes. The provision of a draft IEP does not provide adequate prior written notice.
The complainant alleges a student’s IEP goals were changed after an IEP meeting. Specifically, the complainant shared the student’s math goal had been removed without the parent’s knowledge. The complainant shared with district staff the IEP team agreed with the addition of the math goal and district staff added the goal back to the IEP prior to the parent receiving the final copy. As a result, the IEP that the parent received aligned with the IEP team’s discussion. The district properly made changes and provided prior written notice.
Whether the district properly followed special education disciplinary procedures.
When a student with a disability is subject to a potential disciplinary change of placement, the district must determine whether the student’s conduct is a manifestation of the student’s disability within 10 school days of the decision to change placement. 34 CFR § 300.536. The district, the parent, and relevant members of the student's IEP team must review all relevant information in the student's file, including the student's IEP, any teacher observations, and any relevant information provided by the parents to determine if the conduct in question was caused by, or had a direct and substantial relationship to, the student's disability, or if the conduct in question was the direct result of the district's failure to implement the IEP. 34 CFR § 300.530(e). If the conduct is determined to be a manifestation of the student's disability, the IEP team must address the behavior by either conducting an Functional Behavioral Assessment and implementing a Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP) for the student or, if a BIP has already been developed, reviewing and modifying the BIP as necessary. 34 CFR § 300.530(f)(1). The student must be returned to the placement from which the student was removed unless the parent and the district agree to a change of placement as part of the modification of the student's behavioral intervention plan or one of the limited exceptions discussed below apply. 34 CFR § 300.530(f)(2).
The complainant shared concerns regarding two students (Student B and Student D) they felt were identified for special education in lieu of receiving disciplinary action. Neither student had accumulated 10 or more days of suspension resulting in a need for a manifestation determination. Both students’ behaviors ultimately triggered the district’s child find responsibility and resulted in referrals for special education evaluations. Finally, neither student’s placement changed for disciplinary reasons. The district properly followed special education discipline procedures.
This decision is final for the IDEA State Complaint process. These issues may be addressed through other dispute resolution options, 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