IDEA Complaint Decision 25-116

On August 15, 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 issue is whether the district, during the 2024-25 school year, properly implemented the individualized education program (IEP) of a student with a disability regarding speech and language services.

 

School districts must provide each student with a disability 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 and implementing each student's IEP as it is written. Staff responsible for implementing the student's IEP must be informed of their specific responsibilities. 34 CFR §300.323 and Wis. Stat. §115.787. Whether an interruption in special education services constitutes a denial of FAPE is an individual determination that must be made on a case-by-case basis. Districts should consider the impact of missed services on the student's progress and performance and determine how to ensure the continued provision of FAPE in order for the student to continue to progress and meet the annual goals in his or her IEP. Letter to Clarke, 107 LRP 13115 (OSEP 2007).

 

The student who is the subject of this complaint began the 2024-25 school year with an IEP that was developed on May 7, 2024. The IEP stated the student was to receive “20-30 minutes” of speech services per day. The complainant alleges that the student missed 68 speech services sessions throughout the course of the school year. The department’s review of records submitted by both the complainant and the district confirmed that some of the alleged missed sessions were determined to have fallen on days school was not in session or on days when no instruction took place due to all-school events, or were due to the student’s absence from school. However, documentation reviewed by the department confirms that 15 of the alleged missed sessions did not occur due to provider absences. The district also acknowledged these sessions were not consistently provided as written in the student’s IEP. Generally, when a provider is absent, the services should be provided by a substitute or made up at another time. These sessions were not made up during the 2024-25 school year. Interviews with school staff confirm that the district has an appropriate system of internal controls to ensure that specially designed instruction and related services are provided as written in students’ IEPs. Review of evidence from the district’s system demonstrated that the district provided speech therapy to the student on those days.

 

The IEP team convened to develop the student’s annual IEP on April 22, 2025. During the review of the prior year’s annual goals, the IEP team determined that the student did not meet, and did not make progress toward, their first annual goal related to utilizing their Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) device throughout the school environment. The student made progress toward all four objectives listed in their second annual goal concerning speech sound production and language expression skills, but only reached two of the four targets and thus did not meet the overall goal. The IEP team did not believe that missed sessions contributed toward a lack of progress on either goal.

 

The district erred in this case when it did not make up speech sessions due to provider absences or discuss at an IEP team meeting whether all the missed sessions impacted the student’s progress and performance to the extent that they required compensatory services. Additionally, the student’s IEPs in effect during the time period relevant to this complaint described the frequency and amount of daily speech services as “20-30 minutes per session” is also inappropriate as it is not a clear indication of the district’s commitment of resources. In some circumstances, it may be acceptable to describe the amount of special education services in a narrow range, but given these services were to be provided daily to the student, describing the amount as a range leaves a great deal of uncertainty as to how much service the district is committing to the student over time. Services of this nature should not be described as a range of minutes but as a specific number of minutes.

 

Corrective Action

 

Within 20 days of the date of this decision the IEP team shall reconvene to determine whether and to what extent compensatory speech services are necessary due to the 15 missed sessions for provider absences during the 2024-25 school year. The IEP team must also revise the frequency and amount of the student’s speech services to make clear the district’s commitment of resources per each session. The district will submit the revised IEP to the department within 10 days of that meeting.

 

Within 30 days of the date of this decision the district shall submit to the department, for approval, a corrective action plan to ensure that the frequency and amount of specially designed instruction and related services are appropriately described in all students’ IEPs at the student’s school moving forward.

 

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.