On September 9, 2025, the Department of Public Instruction (department) received a complaint under state and federal special education law from #### (complainant) against the #### (district). A copy of the complaint is enclosed. This is the department’s decision regarding that complaint. The issues in the complaint, which pertain to the time period beginning September 9, 2024, are described below.
Whether the district properly afforded the parents of a student with a disability meaningful opportunity to participate in individualized education program (IEP) team meetings.
School districts must take steps to ensure that parents of a child with a disability are present at each IEP team meeting, including evaluation meetings, or are afforded the opportunity to participate. School districts must notify parents of IEP team meetings early enough to ensure they will have an opportunity to attend and ensure the meeting is scheduled for a mutually agreeable time and place. 34 CFR § 300.322(a)(1). School districts may conduct IEP team meetings using alternative methods of participation, such as video or telephone conferencing. 34 CFR § 300.328.
On August 13, 2025, the district held an initial IEP team meeting for the student who is the subject of this complaint. The student’s parents are divorced, and one parent attended the meeting. The student’s second parent, who is the complainant, did not attend. The district was able to demonstrate they attempted to notify both parents of the meeting date, time, and location. However, the invitation sent to the complainant went to an old email address that the complainant no longer uses. When the IEP team was made aware of this error, a district-level special education administrator reached out to the complainant and scheduled a meeting for September 19, 2025, to review the student’s initial IEP and discuss the concerns of the complainant. The complainant agreed to meet on September 19, 2025, but missed the meeting. The special education administrator offered to set up another meeting and the complainant declined. Interviews between the department and district staff confirm the correct email address has now been entered into the district’s student information system and the complainant is being contacted via the appropriate email address. Given that the district followed appropriate procedures to afford both parents the opportunity to participate in the student’s initial IEP meeting and responded appropriately by offering the complainant an opportunity to meet and review the student’s IEP when they learned they had incorrect contact information for the complainant. The district properly afforded the parents of a student with a disability a meaningful opportunity to participate in the student’s IEP team meeting.
Whether the district properly developed the student’s IEP regarding specially designed instruction and supplementary aids and services for math.
School districts must provide each student with a disability with 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 an IEP based on the student’s unique, disability-related needs that is reasonably calculated to enable the student to make appropriate progress in light of the student’s circumstances, documenting that program in the IEP, and implementing the program as articulated in the IEP. For most students, the IEP must be designed to allow the student to progress from grade to grade, but if that is not possible, the IEP should be appropriately ambitious in light of the child’s circumstances. 34 CFR §§ 300.320-300.324; Wis. Stat. § 115.78(2); Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 137 S. Ct. 988. The IEP team must identify how the student's disability affects the student's involvement and progress in the general curriculum, develop measurable annual goals designed to meet the student's disability-related needs, align special education services to enable the student to advance appropriately toward attaining the annual goals, make progress in the general curriculum, and be educated with nondisabled students. 34 CFR §§ 300.320 and 300.323. In developing each child’s IEP, the IEP team must consider the concerns of the parents. 34 CFR § 300.324.
The student attended a private school located outside of the district before enrolling in public school at the start of the 2025-26 school year. While enrolled in the private school, one of the student’s parents requested a special education evaluation which was completed by an IEP team from the school district in which the private school was located. On July 29, 2025, the IEP team, including both of the student’s parents, met for the student’s initial evaluation. Since the student was attending a private school at the time of the evaluation, the IEP team was permitted to utilize a significant discrepancy analysis to determine the student’s eligibility for special education. For students attending public schools, IEP teams are required to use a different analysis based in part on the student’s response to interventions. The discrepancy analysis is used by IEP teams for private school students to determine whether the student demonstrates insufficient progress in achievement as compared to measured cognitive ability. Based on the scores obtained, the student’s IEP team determined there was a significant discrepancy between student’s cognitive ability and academic achievement in the areas of reading comprehension and written expression, and as a result the student met the specific learning disability criteria and required special education. Although the student’s math scores were in the average and below average range, the IEP team did not determine there was a significant discrepancy between the student’s math skills and cognitive abilities.
The student’s resident school district convened its own IEP team and developed the student’s initial IEP based on the information from the evaluation report completed by the nonresident district. The IEP team determined the student would benefit from specially designed instruction in the areas of basic reading skills, reading comprehension, and writing. The complainant expressed concerns that the student’s IEP did not include specially designed instruction in math. The complainant also had concerns regarding the supplementary aids and services in the IEP, particularly wanting to ensure the student would have access to notes. The complainant also requested the district remove the supplementary aid and service of “reduce[d] amount of items/problems to complete.” On September 22, 2025, the special education administrator addressed these concerns through a prior written notice form which stated that math services were not found to be an area of disability or disability related need at the time and would not be added to the IEP and that the IEP team would also discuss school based math interventions and supports outside of the IEP. The prior written notice form also stated that the student had access to notes, as documented in the IEP. On September 24, 2025, the complainant contacted the student’s special education teacher about these same concerns. The teacher followed up with the complainant on September 30, 2025, and explained the student was receiving additional support in the area of math from the general education teacher. The special education teacher also explained that the accommodation for reduced work would only be used to demonstrate proficiency if the student required incentive to initiate a task, or if the student found the task too difficult, as described in the IEP. The special education teacher communicated to the complainant that the student was currently able to complete the same amount of work as her grade level peers and that the supplementary aid and service may be removed from the IEP at a later date. The district properly developed the student’s IEP regarding specially designed instruction and supplementary aids and services for math.
Whether the district properly responded to the student’s parent’s request for an independent educational evaluation (IEE).
An IEE is an evaluation conducted by a qualified examiner who is not an employee of the student's school district. A parent has the right to an IEE at public expense if the parent disagrees with the district's special education evaluation. Upon receiving a request for an IEE, a school district must inform parents about where to obtain an IEE. The agency must also inform the parents of the district's IEE criteria. The district must respond to the request for an IEE in a reasonable amount of time by either providing the IEE at public expense or requesting a due process hearing to show that its evaluation is appropriate. 34 CFR § 300.502.
A parent is not entitled to a publicly funded IEE before the local educational agency (LEA) completes its evaluation of the student. The law does not require a LEA to reimburse parents for the cost of an evaluation that the parents obtained before the agency completed its evaluation, even if the agency subsequently adopts the results of the evaluation obtained by the parent. Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction Information Update Bulletin 99.02.
The complainant requested an IEE as part of the Indivdiuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) State complaint sent to the district on September 8, 2025. On September 22, 2025, the special education administrator sent the complainant the district’s policy for IEEs via email. The email also instructed the complainant to let the special education administrator know which evaluator the complainant had selected so they could write an agreement for services and payment. The district properly responded to the request for an independent educational evaluation.
Whether the district improperly provided special education services without parent consent.
State and federal special education law require a district to obtain informed written consent from a parent before providing initial special education services to a student with a disability. 34 CFR §§ 300.300 (9) and 300.300(b)(1). In a situation where parents are divorced or separated, district staff must determine whether one or both parents have educational decision-making authority for the child. If both parents have this right, the LEA must accept either parent's consent for initial placement. DPI Bulletin 10.01, 2010 and Letter to Cox, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) 2009.
On September 10, 2025, the student’s other parent provided signed consent for the student’s initial special education placement. The department confirmed with the special education teacher that services were not provided to the student prior to this date. Although both parents have educational decision-making authority, only one parent’s signature is required for consent. The district did not improperly provide special education services without parent consent.
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.
For questions about this information, contact dpispeddata@dpi.wi.gov (608) 266-1781