On July 30, 2025 (form dated July 24, 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 identified are described below and pertain to the 2024-25 school year.
The student who is the subject of this complaint attended seventh grade in the district during the 2024-25 school year. The student had several prior diagnoses of health conditions, including attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and asthma, as well as difficulties with attachment and chronic poor sleep. The student demonstrated impulsive behaviors, especially when faced with nonpreferred tasks. District staff recognized that the student could become easily overwhelmed if things did not go exactly as the student expected. The student preferred one-on-one adult attention at school and often demanded full, undivided attention. This made serving the student in settings with peers challenging. The student needed several movement opportunities throughout the day. The student’s strongest academic interest was in hands-on learning opportunities.
The individualized education program (IEP) in effect for the student at the start of the 2024-25 school year was developed on May 27, 2024, prior to the time period relevant to this complaint. That IEP team decided small group or one-on-one instruction was best for the student’s academic achievement. The IEP team determined that half of the student’s day would be spent at an alternative district school site, and half would be at a community center with district staff. At an IEP team meeting on January 16, 2025, the team discussed concerns with the student’s destructive and disruptive behavior. The IEP team considered placement options and determined that a city-owned site would provide the student with more opportunities for movement than the alternative district site. The half-day community center placement continued. At that time, the team initiated the process for a reevaluation to consider whether the student required occupational therapy to address their sensory needs. In February 2025, the IEP team met twice to update the student’s placement. The city-owned site selected in January 2025 was undergoing construction, rendering some crucial places off-limits, including the gym that the IEP team hoped the student could use for movement opportunities. The student had engaged in threatening behavior with members of the public at the city site. The IEP team decided to maintain the community center placement and change the other half of the day to a different district-owned site. In March 2025, the team met again and changed the student’s placement to full days at the community center because it offered more opportunities for movement and hands-on learning.
On April 30, 2025, the student’s assigned special education teacher was out due to illness. The student was upset by the teacher’s absence and had several moments of frustration including aggressive posturing and swinging at staff, but eventually the student calmed down and began working on school tasks. Later in the morning, the student made threats toward staff and started swinging a sock with rocks in it toward staff. The two district staff members working with the student (Person A and Person B) attempted to verbally redirect the student away from the unsafe behavior. Person A suggested alternative activities. The student started pretending to attack both staff. Before long, the student escalated to actually attacking Person B with the rock-filled sock. Person A briefly grabbed the student’s wrist to successfully remove the sock from the student’s hand. Despite continued verbal redirection, the student then began punching Person B. Person B raised their hands crosswise to shield the attacks. The student continued to attack Person B, so Person A grabbed both of the student’s arms from behind and held the student for approximately one minute. Staff continued verbal prompts to help the student breath and regulate. The student eventually calmed down.
Later that day, the student became dysregulated a second time. The student was upset that Person B did not agree with the student’s desire to take some materials home. The student wanted to call their special education teacher, who was out sick that day, with Person B’s phone. Person B attempted to convince the student to try other ways to contact the teacher that did not involve disturbing the teacher’s rest while out sick. The student became more escalated and waved an electric power drill near Person B’s face. When the student backed off, Person B attempted to explain again how letting the teacher rest while sick would show care and empathy. Person B then offered to text the teacher to check if the teacher was even awake and able to take a phone call. Person B sat down and texted the absent teacher to see if talking was possible. When the teacher did not respond within 30 seconds, the student demanded that Person B attempt a phone call. The student hit Person B with balled up fists approximately four times in the chest area. Person B raised their arms crosswise to shield the attacks. A witness (Person C) believed they saw Person B hold the student’s arms, but Person B does not recall holding the student’s arms and at no point was the student’s ability to move meaningfully restricted. The student continued to attack Person B. The witness called the district’s program administrator for support. When the student heard the phone call, the student stopped, tried to convince staff they were playing, and became upset upon realizing there may be consequences for their behavior.
The program administrator contacted the parent that afternoon to let them know that the student had hit staff and created an unsafe situation. The administrator obtained written statements from Person A and Person C regarding the incidents. Person A and the administrator discussed the first behavior incident in person that afternoon. The evening of April 30, 2025, the administrator told the parent that the student would be suspended from school for one day. The administrator later decided that due to the severity of the second incident, consideration of expulsion was warranted under the district’s code of conduct.
On May 14, 2025, the district conducted a manifestation determination meeting. The IEP team reviewed the student’s file, including the behavior reports and discussion of the student’s placement changes over the course of the school year. During this discussion, IEP team members realized that the reevaluation completed in January only considered the student’s need for occupational therapy and therefore was not fully comprehensive. The IEP team reached consensus in finding that the student’s behavior was directly related to the student’s disability. Regarding the question of whether the behavior was the direct result of the school district not implementing the child’s IEP, there was disagreement. The local education agency representative decided that the lack of a timely and fully comprehensive evaluation impacted the development of the student’s IEP and required the team to find that the student’s IEP had not been properly implemented. The IEP team did not consider changing the student’s placement, which continued at the community center.
The team’s discussion at the manifestation determination prompted the team to issue a second written referral for a reevaluation on May 14, 2025. The IEP team met on June 11, 2025, with a plan to determine the student’s continued eligibility, hold an annual IEP team meeting, and determine the student’s placement. The meeting was contentious, and the IEP team was only able to complete the reevaluation component of the meeting. In July 2025, the parent met with school administrators to discuss their ongoing concerns, including that district staff did not provide the parent progress reports during the 2024 25 school year. The IEP team met again on August 28, 2025, to continue discussion of the student’s annual IEP and placement. Many annual goal baselines for the 2025-26 remained at the same level as baseline data from the previous annual IEP team meeting on May 27, 2024.
Whether the district properly developed and implemented an IEP reasonably calculated to enable the student to make appropriate progress in light of the student’s circumstances regarding their academic achievement and behavioral needs.
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 is reasonably calculated to enable the student to make appropriate progress considering the student’s circumstances, documenting that program in the IEP, and implementing the program as articulated in the IEP. The IEP must contain annual goals that are both ambitious and achievable so that the gap in academic achievement or functional performance between the students and peers is narrowed or closed during the period of the IEP. 34 CFR §§ 300.320-300.324; Wis. Stat. § 115.78(2); Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 137 S.Ct. 988. Each student’s IEP must address the student's needs that result from the student's disability in order to enable the student to be involved and make appropriate progress in the general education curriculum and toward attaining their IEP goals and meet the student's other educational needs that result from the student's disability. Local educational agencies must ensure that the IEP team reviews the child’s IEP periodically, but not less than annually, to determine whether the student’s annual goals are being achieved. 34 CFR § 300.324(b).
Whenever a student's IEP team determines the student's behavior impedes the student's learning or that of others, the IEP team must consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports to address the behavior. 34 CFR §§ 300.320(a) and 300.324(a). If behavior subject to a disciplinary change of placement is determined to be a manifestation of the student’s disability, the IEP team must develop a behavioral intervention plan (BIP) to address the behavior, by either conducting a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) and implementing a BIP for the student, or if a BIP already has 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. 34 CFR § 300.530(f)(2). The IEP must include a statement of the special education services to be provided to the student. 34 CFR §§300.320(a), 300.324(a). The IEP must be written in a manner that clearly describes the school district’s commitment of resources to the parent, and all involved in developing and implementing the IEP. The IEP must be accessible to staff responsible for implementing the student’s IEP, and they must be informed of their specific responsibilities. IEPs must be implemented as written. 34 CFR § 300.323; Wis. Stat. § 115.787.
The district did not meet several obligations regarding its development of the student’s IEP. Since the student received services in alternative locations, they rarely had interactions with peers during the 2024-25 school year. However, the IEP team did not adjust an annual goal about the student’s emotional regulation designed to measure the student’s responses during frustrating peer interactions. Additionally, the district did not identify the student’s lack of meaningful progress towards attaining their annual goals until the annual IEP team meeting on June 11, 2024. The annual IEP team meeting was not held within one year of the prior annual meeting on May 27, 2024. At the annual meeting on June 11, 2025, the IEP team determined the student had not met any of the six annual goals for 2024-25. There was no progress data provided within the annual review documentation. Current baseline data confirms little to no progress in most annual goals. In the meeting to discuss the reevaluation, develop an annual IEP, and determine placement, the IEP team did not complete all agenda items. During the 2024-25 school year, the IEP team did not properly revise goals or services in response to the student’s lack of progress. The IEP team did not properly consider revision of the behavior plan as a result of its manifestation determination review. The district did not properly develop the IEP to enable the student to make appropriate progress in light of the student’s circumstances regarding their academic achievement and behavioral needs.
Notwithstanding the deficiencies created by the district’s improper development of the IEP during the 2024-25 school year, district staff understood their responsibilities as they were described in the IEP, provided the designated behavior supports, and delivered services to the extent possible when the student remained regulated. The student’s behavior plan called for scaling back academic expectations when the student was dysregulated. Although the IEP was improperly developed, district staff properly implemented the student’s IEP as written.
Whether the district properly provided the parent of a student with a disability with periodic reports on progress toward meeting annual goals as specified in the IEP.
School districts must ensure periodic reports are provided to the parents of a student with a disability on the progress the student is making toward meeting each goal as specified in the student's IEP. 34 CFR §§ 300.320 (a)(3)(ii), 300.323(a); Wis. Stat. § 115.787. The report must address progress toward each stated, measurable goal or objective that is aligned with and directly related to the goal or objective statement and provide data or other information consistent with the baseline and level of attainment for the corresponding goal or objective. The reports must provide sufficient information so the parent can determine the degree to which the student has made progress toward meeting each goal or objective. The IEP team must revise the IEP, as appropriate, to address any lack of expected student progress toward the annual goals and in the general education curriculum if appropriate. CFR § 300.324 (b)(1)(ii).
The student’s IEP required staff to provide the student’s parent quarterly progress reports. The parent described not receiving any progress reports during the 2024-25 school year. In a meeting with the parent during the summer after the 2024-25 school year, district staff admitted that the person responsible for providing the reports did not provide them to the parent as required. That person has since left the district. The district confirmed they failed to realize during the school year that the student was not making sufficient progress. The district did not properly provide the student’s parent with periodic reports on progress toward meeting annual goals. Since the district does not have access to any data regarding the student’s progress during the 2024-25 school year, and that most recent IEP from the student contains accurate statements of the student’s current levels of achievement for each annual goal, no further student specific corrective action is required for this issue. The district was not able to identify any other students whose progress reports were not provided.
Whether the district properly determined the student’s educational placement in the least restrictive environment.
Special education may be provided in a wide variety of settings, including the classroom, the home, hospitals, and other institutions. 34 CFR § 300.39: Wis. Stat. § 115.76 (15). In Wisconsin, placements of students with disabilities must be determined by IEP teams in conformity with least restrictive environment (LRE) requirements. To the maximum extent appropriate, students must be educated with peers who do not have disabilities or, in the event that such placement is not appropriate, in an environment with the least possible amount of segregation from the students' nondisabled peers and community. 34 CFR §§ 300.114 - 300.116. 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. In providing or arranging for the provision of nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities, including meals, recess periods, and other services and activities, each public agency must ensure that each child with a disability participates with nondisabled children in these services and activities to the maximum extent appropriate to the needs of that child. 34 CFR § 300.117.
The student’s IEP team theorized that finding a location where the student was able to maintain regulation was key to unlocking their ability to make academic progress. Most IEP team members believed an environment with both access to movement opportunities and fewer people in the vicinity would best address the student’s sensory needs. The IEP team believed that the student learned best one-on-one with an adult. The IEP team met frequently to discuss potential location options and change placement. While the placement decisions the team made during the time period relevant to this investigation were in restrictive settings, they were based on the IEP team’s documented consideration of less restrictive options and individualized determinations of the student’s needs. The district properly determined the student’s educational placement in the LRE.
Whether the district improperly utilized seclusion or physical restraint with the student.
Wisconsin law prohibits the use of seclusion 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. Wis. Stat. § 118.305(3). 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. The room or area in which the student is secluded must be free of objects or fixtures that may injure the student. Wis. Stat. § 118.305(2)(c). If a room is used for seclusion, no door in the room shall be capable of being locked or have a lock on it. Wis. Stat. § 118.305(2)(f).
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. No covered individual, such as a school employee, may use physical restraint on a pupil at school unless he or she has received training meeting state requirements. Wis. Stat. § 118.305(6)(a). There is an exception in the case of an emergency only if a covered individual who has received training is not immediately available due to the unforeseen nature of the emergency. Wis. Stat. § 118.305(6)(c).
Whenever a covered individual or a law enforcement officer uses seclusion or physical restraint on a student at school, the school principal or designee (principal) must notify the student’s parent of the incident as soon as practicable, but no later than one business day after the incident. Wis. Stat. § 118.305(4)(a). The principal must meet with the school staff who participated in the incident to discuss the events preceding, during, and following the use of seclusion or physical restraint. The discussion must include how to prevent the need for seclusion or physical restraint, including the factors that may have contributed to the escalation of behaviors, alternatives to physical restraint, such as de-escalation techniques and possible interventions, and other strategies that the principal determines are appropriate. Within two business days, the principal must complete a written report of the incident including the student’s name, the date, time, and duration of the use of physical restraint or seclusion, a description of the incident including a description of the student’s actions before, during, and after the incident, and the names and titles of the school staff and any law enforcement officers present at the time of the incident. The principal must send, or hand deliver the written report to the student’s parent within three business days of the incident. Wis. Stat. § 118.305(4)(b). The second time that seclusion or physical restraint is used on a student with a disability within the same school year, the student's IEP team must meet as soon as practicable after the incident, but no later than 10 school days after the incident. Wis. Stat. § 118.305(5).
There were no documented instances of seclusion and/or physical restraint with the student except for the behavioral incidents on April 30, 2025. During these incidents, the department concludes staff utilized physical restraint with the student one time. Person A did not restrain the student when briefly holding their arm to take the rock-filled sock away. Later on, Person A restrained and immobilized the student for approximately one minute. Based on incident documentation and department interviews with district staff, there is strong evidence that the degree of force and the duration of the hold was reasonable and necessary to stop the physical attack in progress. Person A has received training meeting state requirements. The district erred in not recognizing the hold must be reported as an incident of restraint. Person B did not restrain the student while shielding attacks during either behavior incident. The department concludes that the district focused on the second incident because documentation classified it as more serious than the first incident, missing that the first incident included physical restraint.
Therefore, the district did not comply with all of the procedures required following an incident of physical restraint. District staff compiled written statements from staff but did not interview the staff involved. The documentation collected was included as part of a disciplinary report of the incident recommending the student’s expulsion. That report included the student’s name, the date, time of the incidents, a description of the actions of the student before, during and after the incidents, and partial information on the names of the school staff present at the time of the incidents. The report did not provide full names and titles of school staff. The report also did not describe the duration of the physical restraints. The district did not share this incomplete report with the parent within three business days of the incidents. The district improperly utilized physical restraint with the student during this incident. There are no additional reports of the use of either seclusion or physical restraint with the student during the 2024-25 school year.
Whether the district properly conducted a reevaluation of the student.
School districts must ensure that a reevaluation of each student with a disability occurs at least once every three years unless the parent and the district agree that a reevaluation is not necessary. In addition, the district must ensure a reevaluation is conducted if the student’s educational or related services needs warrant a reevaluation or if the student’s parent or teacher requests a reevaluation. School districts are not obligated to conduct reevaluations more than once per year unless the parent and the district agree otherwise. 34 CFR § 300.303. The district must obtain parental consent before reevaluating a student with a disability. 34 CFR § 300.300 (c)(1). Consent means that the parent has been fully informed of all information relevant to the activity for which consent is sought, in his or her native language, or through another mode of communication; and that the parent understands and agrees in writing to the carrying out of the activity for which his or her consent is sought. 34 CFR § 300.9. As part of any reevaluation, the IEP team must review existing evaluation data on the student, including evaluations and information provided by the student’s parents; current classroom-based, local, or state assessments and classroom-based observations; and observations by teachers and related services providers. 34 CFR § 300.305 (a)(1). School districts must complete all assessments and hold an IEP team meeting to determine the student's eligibility within 60 days of the district's receipt of the parent's consent to conduct assessments or notify the parent that no additional assessments are needed. 34 CFR §§ 300.304 - 300.306; Wis. Stat. § 115.78(3)(a).
Following the IEP team meeting on January 16, 2025, the district created a written notice of reevaluation based on a joint request from the parent and a teacher noting one area of concern, occupational therapy-sensory needs, as well as an existing data review form identifying the need for a sensory processing profile assessment. District staff began conducting the sensory processing assessment on January 18, 2025. The district was not able to demonstrate that staff obtained the parent’s written consent prior to conducting the sensory processing assessment. The student’s IEP team added occupational therapy and psychological services to the IEP on February 12, 2025. The district began providing the student occupational therapy services on February 17, 2025.
After the May 14, 2025, manifestation determination review, the district initiated a second referral for a reevaluation of the student. The notice of reevaluation, dated May 21, 2025, identified two areas of concern, occupational therapy-sensory needs, and other health impairment. The district sent the parent notice of the additional assessments to be conducted that same day, May 21, 2025. The notice identified academic assessments (reading, writing, and math), a health review, a functional behavioral assessment, and sensory processing assessment. The parent provided written consent for the assessments on May 30, 2025. The IEP team discussed the results of the assessments and concluded the student continued to meet criteria for other health impairment and require specially designed instruction on June 13, 2025. Because the district did not obtain parental consent prior to conducting the first sensory processing assessment and did not originally conduct a fully comprehensive evaluation, the district did not properly conduct the reevaluation of the student.
Corrective Action
Within 30 days of this decision, the student’s IEP team shall meet to consider whether compensatory services are required to address the student’s lack of progress towards annual goals.
Within 30 days of this decision, the district must submit a proposed corrective action plan to the department for approval to ensure the district properly 1) recognizes and documents incidents of seclusion and physical restraint and 2) conducts timely and comprehensive reevaluations.
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 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