On June 27, 2025 (form dated June 18, 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. Much of the complaint focuses on an incident that occurred on November 1, 2024, and the subsequent release of a video. However, that issue does not fall under special education law, and is being reviewed separately within the agency. The issues identified under special education law are whether the district during the 2024-25 school year properly determined the educational placement in the least restrictive environment for a student with a disability and properly implemented the Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) of two students with disabilities.
In Wisconsin, each student's IEP team must determine the student's educational placement, and the placement determination must be made through an IEP team meeting. Wis. Stat. § 115.78(2). Placement determinations must be made in conformity with the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) requirements, which requires that students with disabilities receive their education in the regular classroom to the maximum extent appropriate.). Special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment should be used only 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. 34 CFR §§ 300.114-300.116.
Shortening a student’s school day is considered a change of placement. It is only appropriate to shorten the length of the school day for a student with a disability if the student’s IEP team determines a shortened day is required to address the student’s unique disability-related needs. This should be a very rare occurrence. Before deciding to shorten the student’s day, the IEP team must consider if there are other ways to meet the student’s needs. 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. The student should return to a full school day as soon as they are able, and under most circumstances, a shortened school day should be in place for a limited amount of time. Shortened school days may not be used to manage student behavior or as a means of discipline.
School districts meet their obligation to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) to each student with a disability, in part, by developing a program based on the student’s unique, disability-related needs that are reasonably calculated to enable the student to make appropriate considering the student’s circumstances, documenting that program in the IEP, and implementing the program as articulated in the IEP. Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017). The IEP must be accessible to staff responsible for implementing the student’s IEP, and staff must be informed of their specific responsibilities. IEPs must be implemented as written. 34 CFR § 300.323; Wis. Stat. § 115.787.
During the 2024-25 school year, the parent’s two children (Student A and Student B) attended a small alternative program within the school district. No more than four students attended the program at any given time. Student A was in seventh grade and Student B was in fifth grade, and both students received special education services, with an IEP in effect during the school year. Student A was identified under the area of other health impairment and Student B was identified under the area of emotional behavioral disability.
Student A’s IEP team met on November 7, 2024, to develop their annual IEP. The IEP included daily specialized instruction in math and reading for 30 minutes for each subject, 10 minutes per day of specially designed instruction in social skills and self-regulation, and 30 minutes per week of speech and language as a related service. The IEP also included as a program modification 15 minutes per month of consultation between the general education and special education teacher. Supplementary services included an “alternative education setting for work completion on all academic areas for 120 minutes daily”, and an “alternative education setting for online science instruction” for 90 minutes daily. Behavior was identified as a factor impeding the student’s learning, and the IEP provided behavior supports of movement breaks, visual schedules and “breaks in a separate setting as needed to re-regulate.” Three of the student’s annual goals focused on improving language, reading and math skills, while the other goals focused on the ability to follow directions with no more than three prompts per class and using appropriate language and social interaction skills with fewer than three prompts per class period.
The Notice of Placement indicated that the student would attend the alternative school within the district and would not participate full-time in the regular education environment. On May 28, 2025, the Notice of Placement was revised to indicate that the student benefits from one-on-one instruction in an alternative setting, and that the team agrees that the student may need placement in an alternative setting outside of the school district.
Student B’s IEP in effect at the beginning of the 2024-25 school year identified behavior as a factor that impeded their learning, stating that due to the student’s behavior a highly structured, small group classroom environment with close supervision was required. The IEP provided specially designed instruction in social skills three times a week for 30 minutes. Supplementary aids and services included providing sensory breaks and a visual schedule. The IEP included one goal focusing on improving the student’s ability to stay awake during the school day and completing schoolwork without “aggression, swearing and making noises.” In March 2025, the student’s IEP team conducted its annual IEP review, and added three annual goals pertaining to reading, math, and self-regulation. Specially designed instruction in all academic areas was also included, and instruction in social skills was increased to daily. Placement continued at the alternative school within the district. On May 28, 2025, the Notice of Placement was revised to indicate that Student B would also benefit from placement in an alternative school outside the district for targeted instruction and behavior management services.
During the months of November 2024 and December 2024, Student A was involved in several behavioral incidents, with some resulting in out-of-school suspensions. On November 7, 2024, the IEP team conducted a manifestation determination regarding an incident that involved another student. The IEP team determined that the student’s behavior was not a manifestation of the student’s disability. After another incident that occurred on November 19, 2024, the parent was informed that Student A was heading towards expulsion if things didn’t improve. On December 16, 2024, another behavioral incident occurred resulting in an out-of-school suspension.
On December 20, 2024, the IEP team met, and the student’s placement was changed to one-on-one instruction with the teacher for one hour every day after school. The student would also receive an online course in science. There is no documentation in Student A’s IEP reflecting this placement change. Nor is there any evidence that the IEP team discussed other less-restrictive placement options or other ways of meeting the student’s needs in lieu of shortening the student’s day. There is also no evidence or documentation of a discussion as to why the student’s disability-related needs necessitated a shortened day or the plan for returning the student to a full-school day as soon as possible. In addition, the services and goals were not revised so it would have been impossible to implement the student’s IEP given the reduced schedule. The student accessed the on-line course and attended the after-school instruction for a few days in January 2025 and then stopped attending for the remainder of the school year. Although the district did send a letter to the parent regarding the lack of attendance, the district did not conduct an IEP team meeting to discuss other possible placement options or additional supports to address the lack of attendance.
The district did not properly change Student A’s placement on December 20, 2024, and did not properly implement the student’s IEP beginning January 2, 2025. Within 20 days from the date of this decision, the district must conduct an IEP team meeting to determine the amount of compensatory services to be provided to Student A for the time period between January 2, 2025, and the end of the school year. The district must provide the department with a copy of the student’s IEP documenting the discussion and the amount to be provided within 10 days from the date of the IEP team meeting. Within 30 days from the date of the decision, the district must develop and submit to the department a corrective action plan to ensure that placement determinations, including decisions regarding a shortened day, are properly made and documented in the student’s IEP.
Student B attended the alternative program within the school district for the entire 2024-25 school year, and their placement was never changed. On five different occasions, the parent was contacted and told not to bring Student B to school because there wasn’t sufficient staffing. At all other times, Student B’s IEP was implemented as written. Within 20 days from the date of this decision, the district must conduct an IEP team meeting to determine the amount of compensatory services to be provided due to the student’s IEP not being implemented for those five days. No further corrective action is required.
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 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 main line at (608) 266-1781.
For questions about this information, contact dpispeddata@dpi.wi.gov (608) 266-1781