IDEA Complaint Decision 25-109

On July 21, 2025, the Department of Public Instruction (department) received a complaint under state and federal special education law from #### (parent) against (district). This is the department’s decision regarding that complaint. The issue is whether the district, during the 2024-25 school year, properly conducted a special education evaluation.

 

In conducting an evaluation to determine whether a student has a disability, school districts must use a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant information about the student, including information from the student’s parent. The student’s individualized education program (IEP) team may not use any single measure or assessment as the sole criterion for determining whether the student is a student with a disability. The student must be assessed in all areas related to the suspected disability. 34 CFR §300.304(b).

 

The student who is the subject of this complaint was referred for a special education evaluation on March 19, 2025. In the referral, the parent noted that the student had an attention deficit which was resulting in a regression in their academic scores and that the student’s classroom teacher reported they were not keeping up with his peers and was distractible in class. The parent provided consent for various assessments, which the district completed, and the student’s IEP team met to determine the student’s initial eligibility on May 28, 2025. After reviewing data and applying eligibility criteria in the area of Other Health Impairment, the IEP team determined the student did not meet disability criteria and was not a student with a disability. The team based its decision on educational achievement testing showing the student’s math and reading scores were within the normal range, classroom observations in which the student did not demonstrate any problems with self-regulation, a teacher rating scale which showed no concerns for self-regulation, and a lack of prior documented concerns about the student’s academic or functional performance by school staff. The parent raised several concerns about the information used by the team to make their determination. Specifically, the parent felt that the observations of the student were conducted during activities where the student did not typically exhibit attention difficulties, the standardized test scores were outdated and showed a decline in the student’s academic achievement, testing by the school psychologist was done under circumstances where the student’s attention difficulties were unlikely to effect the results of the assessment, and that the team ignored the interventions the student had received during the 2024-25 school year. After the IEP team meeting the parent requested a new evaluation of the student which the district is in the process of completing.

 

The evidence considered by the IEP team provided a reasonable basis for the team to conclude the student did not meet disability area criteria. While it is true that staff observed the student in different environments they likely would have seen other sorts of behavior, it is equally true that IEP team members observed no consistent problems with self-regulation across environments and time. The standardized test scores reviewed by the team were the most recent available, and while they did show a decline, they remained in the average range for the student’s peer group. The testing done by the school psychologist was consistent with the instrument’s protocols and produced valid results consistent with the results of previous academic achievement assessments of the student. The parent was informed by the student’s school in the fall of 2024; the student would be receiving regular education academic interventions. The district was not able to demonstrate that these interventions were provided nor evidence of their outcomes. These circumstances are unfortunate, but the IEP team correctly concluded it could not use undocumented interventions, and the interventions were not required to determine the student’s eligibility. The district properly conducted the student’s evaluation.

 

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.