On August 11, 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 are identified below and pertain to the 2024-25 school year.
Whether the district properly developed the individualized education program (IEP) of a student with a disability to address the student’s behavioral needs.
School districts must develop an IEP for each student with a disability for whom they are responsible. The IEP must include measurable annual goals designed to meet the student's disability-related needs and provide special education services designed to enable the student to advance appropriately toward attaining the annual goals and make progress in the general curriculum. The IEP must include clear descriptions of the amount, frequency, location, and duration of the services, so the district’s commitment of resources is clear to the parent, and all involved in developing and implementing the IEP. 34 CFR § 300.320. In the case of a student whose behavior impedes the student’s learning or that of others, the IEP team must consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and other strategies, to address that behavior. 34 CFR § 300.324(a)(2)(i).
During the 2024-25 school year, the student was in fifth grade and received special education services under the eligibility area of emotional behavioral disability. The student has many strengths, including strong cognitive abilities, and willingness to help and be a leader. The student is a good reader, has strong artistic skills, and enjoys building and creating new things. The student is very active and does best in a hands-on multisensory environment. The student’s IEP team met seven times throughout the 2024-25 school year, with the first meeting held on August 26, 2024. The IEPs that were in effect during the school year identified behavior as a special factor due to the student’s struggles with coping skills, deregulation, and distorted perceptions. The student had difficulty engaging in nonpreferred activities, and during these times, would often try to leave the classroom or resource room, and/or become dysregulated and engage in unsafe behaviors. The IEP team identified the ability to regulate and stay on task as a disability related need and included goals in the student’s IEPs focusing on increased participation in non-preferred activities, increasing self-regulation, and increased ability to stay on task.
The IEPs provided specially designed instruction in social skills for 150 minutes per week, and occupational therapy for 40 minutes, three out of four weeks. The IEPs listed numerous supplementary aids and services that included choices, visual positive reinforcement, a calming space, modified assignments, timers, text to speech, jobs broken into smaller chunks, and voice typing. The frequency and amount for all of the supplementary aids and services was described as “daily to support the student’s regulation and learning in all environments.” This description does not clearly describe when a particular supplementary aid and service should be provided to the student. If the supplementary aid and service cannot be described in terms of an amount, then the circumstances under which it should be provided should be described. Although the IEPs developed for the 2024-25 school year addressed the students behavioral needs through goals and specially designed instruction, the IEP team did not clearly describe the frequency and amount with regard to the supplementary aids and services. Within 30 days from the date of this decision, the IEP team must meet to revise the student’s IEP to ensure that the frequency and amount is specifically described for each supplementary aid and service. The district must submit a corrective action plan within 30 days from the date of this decision to ensure that the frequency and amount of supplementary services are clearly described in IEPs.
Whether the district properly determined the student’s educational placement, including shortening the student’s school day.
To the maximum extent appropriate, school districts must ensure students with disabilities are educated with their peers who do not have disabilities. Special classes, separate schooling, or other removals of students with disabilities from the regular educational environment should occur 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(a)(2). Under Wisconsin law, each student's IEP team determines the student's placement. Wis. Stat. § 115.78(2). 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. Before deciding to shorten the student’s day, the IEP team must consider if there are other ways to meet the student’s needs, including other placement options. 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.
On August 24, 2024, the student’s IEP team met and determined that the student would continue a shortened day placement for two hours per day. The IEP considered other placement options and noted that prior day treatment programs and virtual instruction were not successful, and a residential care center placement was not available. In October 2024, the IEP team met and increased the student’s day to three and a half hours. On November 12, 2024, the IEP team decreased the student’s placement to one hour a day, which was then reviewed again on November 26, 2024, where the IEP determined that the placement should remain the same. On February 12, 2025, the student’s day was increased to 75 minutes per day. In March and April 2025, the student’s placement was again reviewed, and it was determined that the school day would not be extended at that time. In making each of these determinations, the IEP team reviewed data that showed a significant decrease in the student’s ability to regulate as the school day was extended, resulting in extreme escalation and unsafe behaviors. Documentation supported the IEP team’s rationale as to why a shortened day was necessary, and the IEPs included a plan to meet frequently to review data to determine if the length of the day could be increased.
Throughout the school year, school staff also met every other week to share information about the student’s progress and to make changes to better support the student. For example, the student’s classroom was changed to a smaller area when staff observed that the student would become more dysregulated in larger spaces. Staff also continued throughout the year to review schedules and adjust, as necessary. Staff incorporated physical education, music, and art into the student’s schedule as these were the student’s preferred activities. Staff also maintained a daily tracking log to share information about the student’s day with their family and communicated regularly with outside service providers. Despite these efforts, the student had difficulty engaging in instruction, especially non-preferred activities, and made minimal progress. The department recognizes that it was a challenging school year for the family and for school staff.
The family saw a significant improvement in the student’s ability to regulate over the summer, and the student had a successful start to the 2025-26 school year. The IEP team is meeting on October 22, 2025, to review current data and determine whether the student’s school day should be lengthened. Under the unique circumstances of this case, the school district properly determined the student’s education placement, including shortening the student’s school day.
Whether the district improperly utilized seclusion and physical restraint with the student.
State law prohibits the use of seclusion and physical restraint by school staff 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. 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. When a student is secluded, the staff member must be able to see the student at all times, and the room must be free of objects or fixtures capable of causing injury. Wis. Stats. §§ 118.305(2); 118.305(3). Physical restraint means a restriction that immobilizes or reduces the ability of a student to freely move their torso, arms, legs, or head. Wis. Stats. §§ 118.305(3).
After each instance of seclusion or restraint, all individuals involved must meet to discuss the events preceding, during, and following the use of the seclusion or physical restraint. They must also discuss how to prevent the need for seclusion or physical restraint, including factors that may have contributed to the escalation of the student's behaviors; alternatives to physical restraint, such as de-escalation techniques and possible interventions; and other strategies that the school principal or designee determines are appropriate. Wis. Stat. § 118.305(4)(a). 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). This report must be retained by the school principal or his or her designee and should be sent to the student’s parent by first class mail, electronic transmission, or hand delivered. The second time that seclusion or physical restraint is used with a student with a disability within the same school year, the student's IEP team is required to convene as soon as possible after the incident but no later than 10 school days after the incident. The IEP team must review the IEP and as needed, revise it to ensure it includes appropriate positive behavioral interventions and supports and other strategies to address the behavior of concern based on a functional behavioral assessment of that behavior. Wis. Stat. § 118.305(5).
During the 2024-25 school year, the student was restrained by the school resource officer on October 1, 2024, and was secluded on November 5, 2024, and May 23, 2025. After each incident, the parent was notified and a written report was provided as required, a debriefing meeting with school staff was held, and the IEP team met within 10 days after the second incident to review the IEP. Seclusion or restraint was only used when there was an imminent safety risk and was only used until the safety issue was resolved. The school office restrained the student when the student was kicking the windows in the classroom in trying to escape through the window, and the restraint lasted for two minutes. The circumstances under which seclusion were used included the student throwing items at staff, kicking, breaking items, and climbing on cabinets. The first incident of seclusion lasted five minutes, and the second incident lasted 28 minutes. The incident that occurred in May 2025 resulted in a staff member being injured, which required ongoing medical care. Although seclusion was used under appropriate circumstances, the room used was not free of objects capable of causing harm. The first time it occurred in the student’s classroom, and the second time, it occurred in a room that was intended to be free of such objects, but someone had inadvertently left two metal chairs in the room. One of these chairs was used by the student to break the door frame of the window. The district did not properly use seclusion with the student regarding the location in which it occurred. Within 30 days from the date of this decision, the district must develop a corrective action plan and submit it to the department to ensure that any room used for seclusion is free of objects capable of causing harm.
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