On June 18, 2025 (form dated June 16, 2025) the Department of Public Instruction (department) received a complaint under state and federal special education law from #### (parents) 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 18, 2025, are described below.
Whether the district properly developed the student’s individualized education program (IEP) regarding participation in extracurricular activities and transportation.
School districts must provide each student with a disability with a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment. School districts meet their obligation to provide FAPE to each student with a disability, in part, by developing an IEP based on the student’s unique, disability-related needs that is reasonably calculated to enable the student to make progress appropriate in light of the student’s circumstances, documenting that program in the IEP, and implementing the program as articulated in the IEP. Districts must ensure that each student with a disability participates with nondisabled peers in extracurricular and non-curricular activities to the maximum extent appropriate given the needs of that child. Each student's IEP team must determine whether the student needs supplementary aids and services in order to participate. 34 CFR § 300.117. In addition to transportation provided routinely to all students, some students with disabilities require transportation (often called “specialized transportation”) as a related service in order to benefit from special education. Each student’s IEP team determines, based on the student’s unique disability-related needs, whether the student needs specialized transportation, and if so, how specialized transportation services will be provided. 34 CFR § 300.107.
Participation in Extracurricular Activities
The student who is the subject of this complaint is an adult student over the age of 18 who participates in the district’s transition program for students ages 18-21. The student’s parents, who are the student’s legal guardians, filed the complaint on behalf of the student. The student is deaf-blind and uses sign language to communicate. The student participates in field trips and community outings that are not extracurricular activities, but are part of the student’s school program during the school day. The IEP in effect at the beginning of the 2024-25 school year documents the student’s need to have a full time intervener. An intervener is a designated related service provider who works one-on-one with students who are deafblind, focusing on communication, language development, and building conceptual understanding. Interveners help facilitate access to information and promote social-emotional well-being. On September 26, 2024, the IEP team met for the student’s annual IEP and clarified that the student required a full time intervener for 420 minutes daily in the following locations: the YMCA, the community, and the special education classroom. The district properly developed the student’s IEP regarding participation in extracurricular activities.
Transportation
The student’s IEP that was in effect at the beginning of the 2024-25 school year lists transportation to and from school as a related service. Initially the student was riding the school bus with non-disabled peers. During the student’s annual IEP meeting on September 26, 2024, parents expressed concern for the student’s safety while riding the bus and requested an aide to ride the bus with the student. The IEP team, including the parents, agreed that the district would provide transportation via a school van while the district worked to hire an aide for the student to ride the bus. The IEP team appropriately identified the need for transportation and documented the IEP discussions regarding the transportation. The district properly developed the student’s IEP regarding transportation.
Whether the district improperly utilized seclusion and/or physical restraint.
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. 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) & 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).
The parents allege that school staff implemented inappropriate restraint with the student, including use of a weighted blanket, a weighted backpack and a weighted medicine ball while walking. On January 31, 2025, the parents met with the school principal, director of special education and assistant director of special education and brought up the use of the weighted backpack and medicine ball as a concern. On February 2, 2025, the assistant director sent an email to the student’s special education teachers asking for clarification on the use of the weighted items. On February 3, 2025, the teachers replied that they had been using the weighted backpack and medicine ball. The assistant special education director shared the parent concerns with the teachers and directed them to stop using the weighted backpack and medicine ball. Weighted equipment used properly for sensory support under the direction and oversight of appropriate medical or therapeutic staff is not considered a mechanical restraint. In this situation, the use of the weighted items was not appropriate, but did not immobilize or reduce the student’s free movement, it does not meet the legal definition of a physical restraint. Other concerns raised by the parent did not meet the legal definition of seclusion or physical restraint. The district did not improperly utilize seclusion and/or physical restraint with the student.
Whether the district properly provided the student’s parent with prior written notice regarding changes made to the IEP.
Prior written notice must be given to the parents of a child with a disability a reasonable time before the Local Educational Agency (LEA) proposes or refuses to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child or the provision of FAPE to the student. Among several required components, this notice must include a description of the action proposed or refused by the LEA, an explanation of why the LEA 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.
On September 26, 2024, the IEP team met to conduct the annual IEP and review the student’s Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP). Following the IEP team meeting, the parents received the revised BIP which included new language indicating that if the student’s behavior escalated to the point that non-violent crisis intervention was ineffective, staff should call 911, school administration, and the parents. The student’s parents expressed concern about the addition of this language, as it was not part of the IEP team’s discussion at the September 26, 2024, meeting. An IEP team member explained to the parent that this language is added to all students’ BIPs. The transition coordinator acknowledged this language was not discussed during the meeting nor was it included in the draft copy of the IEP the parents took home with them after the IEP team meeting. In this instance, the district made changes to the IEP outside of the meeting without the parent’s agreement and without providing prior written notice.
In December of 2024, the student’s full-time intervener got injured and was only able to work half days. The student’s Deaf and Hard of Hearing teacher was able to provide the student with some similar support during the intervener’s absences. On January 14, 2025, the student’s intervener ended its employment with the district. The district was able to provide the student with a replacement intervener on January 16, 2025. The student’s IEP team met on February 28, 2025, to conduct the student’s three year reevaluation meeting and to review and revise the student’s IEP. The parents expressed concerns that the student was receiving only 360 minutes of intervener services instead of 420 minutes as written in the IEP. The IEP team agreed that the student continued to require 420 minutes of intervener services daily. The district did not make changes to student’s IEP regarding the amount of intervener time in the student’s IEP.
On April 24, 2025, the parent contacted the director regarding changes to the intervener’s schedule. On April 28, 2025, the assistant director responded to the parent stating the change did not impact the number of minutes the student was receiving intervener support. The district did not make changes to the student’s IEP at that time.
On June 4, 2025, the assistant special education director emailed the parent to explain some changes to the transition program that would take effect for the 2025-26 school year. The changes include new beginning and ending times that impact the length of the program each day. On June 9, 2025, the parent responded expressing concerns about the length of the transition program day, stating it provides fewer minutes of service than the 420 minutes of intervener services written in the student’s current IEP. The assistant director responded on June 11, 2025, and requested an IEP team meeting towards the end of August 2025 to discuss the changes to the transition program. The parent declined, indicating they wished to meet with the IEP team in September 2025.
While it is clear the changes in intervener staff, changes in transportation, and changes to the program plans for the upcoming school year created concern for the student’s parents, the only instance where staff improperly made changes to the IEP was following the September 26, 2024, IEP team meeting.
Within 30 days of the date of this decision, the district must develop and submit to the department for approval a corrective action plan. The proposal shall describe how the district plans to ensure that staff understand the process for documenting changes to IEPs based on team decisions made at the meeting, and providing timely, accurate written placement notices to parents at a reasonable time prior to implementing changes to a student’s IEP.
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.