On August 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. The issues are identified below and pertain to the 2024-25 school year.
Whether the district properly developed and implemented the individualized education program (IEP) of a student with a disability regarding positive behavioral supports.
School districts must provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to each student with a disability by developing an IEP that meets the student's unique needs and by implementing special education and related services in accordance with the student's IEP. 34 CFR §§ 300.323(c)(2) & 300.324. In the case of a student whose behavior impedes the student's learning or that of others, districts must consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports and other strategies to address that behavior. 34 CFR § 300.324 (a)(2)(i).
The student’s IEP in effect at the beginning of the 2024-25 school year identified behavior as a factor impeding their learning or that of others. Specifically, the team noted the student’s difficulty following directions and classroom routines along with physical aggression. The team identified the student’s disability related needs as emotional self-regulation, safety, and behavior and developed annual goals related to these needs. The student’s IEP also included services in the areas of adult support, visual supports, transitions, activities, a behavior intervention plan (BIP), and sensory supports. The IEP also provided for specially designed instruction in social skills and behavior development, and occupational therapy. The student’s IEP team met to review and revise the student’s IEP in January and February 2025 subsequent to incidents described below. At these meetings, the IEP team conducted a functional behavioral assessment and reviewed the student’s BIP clarifying several of its provisions. The student’s IEP is appropriate to meet the student’s disability related needs.
The parent is concerned that the student’s IEP is not being implemented effectively so as to address the student’s dysregulation in its early stages to prevent subsequent physical aggression by the student. The department’s investigator interviewed several district staff members involved with the student’s education. These staff members were familiar with the positive behavior supports and interventions specified in the student’s IEP and had a solid understanding of how to support the student’s behavioral needs. The district properly implemented the student’s IEP regarding behavioral supports.
Whether the district improperly utilized seclusion and/or physical restraint with the student.
State law prohibits the use of seclusion and 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. 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. Physical restraint may only be used if there are no medical contraindications to its use.
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. If seclusion is used, constant supervision of the student must be maintained, either by remaining in the room or area with the student or by observing the student through a window that allows the staff person to see the student at all times; the seclusion room or area must be free of objects or fixtures that may injure the student; the duration of the seclusion must be only as long as necessary to resolve the clear, present, and imminent risk to the physical safety of the student or others; and no door connecting the seclusion room may be capable of being locked. Wis. Stats. §§ 118.305(2) & 118.305 (3).
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. Also, within three business days of the incident, the district must 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 student 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).
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).
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 practicable after the incident but no later than ten 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).
On January 6, 2025, the student left their classroom and entered the hallway. A special education assistant (SEA) asked the student to either remain in class or the hallway. The student became upset and started kicking the SEA. The SEA called for additional staff support. An additional staff member arrived and attempted to engage the student so the SEA could remove herself from the situation. The student punched the staff member on the nose. The staff member then held the student for approximately one minute until additional staff members arrived to assist. The student was released and continued kicking staff until they were able to return to a regulated state. This was the first instance of restraint of the student in the 2024-25 school year. The parent was notified of the incident, and a written report of the incident was provided to the parent on the same day. Staff members involved in the incident met the same day to discuss the events which led to the restraint and how de-escalation techniques could be used to prevent further incidents.
On January 8, 2025, the student was at recess and entered a physical altercation with a fellow student. An SEA arrived to assist with the situation, and the student began to hit and bite the SEA. The SEA held the student’s hands down to prevent the student from hitting for less than one minute. The student agreed to walk away, and the SEA released the hold. The parent was notified of the incident, and a written report of the incident was provided to the parent on the same day. Staff members involved in the incident met the same day to discuss the events which led to the restraint and how de-escalation techniques could be used to prevent future incidents. As this was the second incident of restraint in the 2024-25 school year, the student’s IEP team met on January 16, 2025, and continued to meet on February 6, 2025. At these meetings, the IEP team discussed the student’s behavioral needs and made revisions to the student’s behavior intervention plan and other positive supports. Specifically, the team added language to assist staff in identifying the early signs of dysregulation for the student, provided for switching of staff members when the student becomes dysregulated, and added provisions for a work break routine.
On May 12, 2025, the student was in a break room following a behavioral incident. In the room, the student began to throw chairs at an SEA. The SEA left the room and closed the door behind them holding the door closed by the handle. After 10 -15 seconds the student asked the SEA to let go of the door and the door was opened. The district notified the parent of the incident and provided the parent a written report of the incident on the same day. Staff members involved in the incident met the same day to discuss the events which led to the seclusion and how de-escalation techniques could be used to prevent further incidents.
On June 27, 2025, the student was attending the district general summer school program for elementary school students. The student became upset during a fire drill and began hitting staff and throwing items at them. Staff restrained the student for approximately one minute in order to transport the student to a seclusion room. In the seclusion room, the student was informed that the door would be opened when they calmed down. When the student sat down on the floor, staff opened the door. The student exited the room on their own after four minutes. The district notified the parent of the incident and provided the parent a written report of the incident on the same day. Staff members involved in the incident met the same day to discuss the events which led to the restraint and the seclusion and how de-escalation techniques could be used to prevent further incidents.
With respect to the incidents on January 6, 2025, January 8, 2025, and June 27, 2025, the district did not improperly restrain or seclude the student. In these incidents, the student’s conduct presented a clear and imminent risk to the physical safety of the staff, and the restraint or seclusion lasted only as long as necessary to reduce that risk. The department’s investigator inspected the room used for seclusion on June 27, 2025, and found it to be free of objects that might cause harm to a student and without a door capable of being locked. The district also followed requirements with respect to parent notification, debriefing meetings with staff and an IEP team meeting following the second incident in the same school year.
With respect to the seclusion incident on May 12, 2025, after holding the door shut for 10-15 seconds, staff immediately released the door when the student asked. Because the room used was not free of objects that could have harmed the student (chairs and other classroom furnishings), the district improperly utilized seclusion with the student. Within 30 days of the date of this decision the district shall submit to the department a corrective action plan outlining the steps it will take to ensure staff are aware of and follow the prohibitions on using rooms with objects or fixtures that may injure the student during seclusion.
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