On September 17, 2025 (form dated September 10, 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 identified issues are described below and apply to the time period beginning September 17, 2024.
Whether the district properly implemented the individualized education program (IEP) of a student with a disability during the 2024-25 school year.
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.
School districts must ensure that the description of services to be provided, including the statement of supplementary aids and services and the statement of specially designed instruction in the IEP are described in a manner appropriate to the services. The description for each service must specify the anticipated frequency the service will be provided, including the amount. The services must be described in the IEP so the level of the local education agency’s commitment of resources is clear. The amount of time to be committed to each service must be appropriate to the specific service and stated in a manner that can be understood by all involved in developing and implementing the IEP. 34 CFR §300.320(a)(4), §300.320(a)(7); Wis. Stat. § 115.787(2)(c)&(f).
In the fall of 2024, one of the complainants, who is the student’s parent and also an employee of the school district, became concerned that the student’s IEP was not being properly implemented. The complainants raised these concerns to district staff on October 16, 2024. The district conducted an internal investigation and found that the IEP was not being properly implemented with respect to, “communication, visuals, and instruction” per the district’s official response to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) complaint. The district acknowledged this implementation error to the complainants. Interviews with school staff confirm that they discussed the possibility of providing the student compensatory services, but the district did not officially make an offer of the services to the complainants. Given ongoing concerns over the content of the student’s IEP, the complainants kept the student home from school beginning on October 17, 2024. The student’s parents completed the required forms and officially began homeschooling the student on November 17, 2024. To date, the student’s IEP team has not determined, nor has the district provided the student compensatory services for the improper implementation of their IEP from September 3, 2024, to October 16, 2024.
The student’s IEP team reconvened on January 6, 2025, to develop a new IEP that staff hoped would satisfy the complainants, with the goal that they would re-enroll the student in the public school. This meeting was successful, and the IEP team planned for the student to re-enroll in the public school district on January 20, 2025, and complete the school year. The IEP included specially designed instruction in English and a targeted support class that the student was to receive daily for “at least one class period.” It also includes “additional math support” listed as a supplementary aid and service that the student is to receive “daily.” These descriptions of the supplementary aids and services and specially designed instruction are not appropriate as they do not make clear the district’s commitment of resources. The complainants did not have a clear understanding of the services being provided as written. The district did not properly implement the student’s IEP.
Whether the district properly determined the student’s educational placement in the least restrictive environment (LRE) during the 2025-26 school year.
Educational placements of students with disabilities must be determined in conformity with LRE requirements. In Wisconsin, placements must be determined by each student’s IEP team. To the maximum extent appropriate, students with disabilities must be educated with students who are nondisabled. 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.
On August 28, 2025, the district presented the complainants with the student’s proposed schedule for the 2025-26 school year. This schedule proposed the removal of the student’s later start to the school day and early release, which had been successful the prior year. The schedule also proposed a change to the student’s lunch hour. Under this proposed schedule the student would only spend about 10 minutes at lunch with their grade-level peers and then would attend a full lunch period with older students. The complainants objected to these changes and did not send the student to school when the 2025-26 school year began. District staff met with the student’s parents on September 4, 2025, and discussed the student’s schedule, but this was not an official IEP team meeting. The complainants agreed to the resulting schedule on September 5, 2025, and made plans for the student to begin school on September 8, 2025. On September 7, 2025, the complainants ultimately changed their minds and decided to homeschool the student. The student's parents completed and filed a homeschooling application for the student September 18, 2025.
While the district’s position is that the schedule that was presented on August 28, 2025, was only a proposal, the proposed changes amounted to a change of the student’s educational placement. The district did not arrange for the student’s IEP team to discuss or review the changes during an IEP team meeting. The September 4, 2025, meeting to reach consensus on a schedule was also not an IEP team meeting. The student’s most recent IEP team meeting occurred on January 6, 2025. While the student never attended school during the 2025-26 school year, the district was aware that the parents wished to return the student to school. The district did not properly determine the student’s educational placement in the LRE. District staff attempted to increase the length of time the student would be in school and change the student’s lunch hour so that they would spend less time with their grade-level peers and did not convene the student’s IEP team to do so.
Whether the district properly provided sufficient staffing to implement the student’s IEP regarding specially designed instruction in reading and math during the 2025-26 school year.
Each school board must ensure every teacher, aide, or other professional staff holds a valid certificate, license, or permit issued by the department for the position for which the individual is employed. Special education services must be provided by properly licensed special education teachers. 34 CFR § 300.156; Wis. Stats § 118.19.
The complainants allege that the student’s proposed schedule for the 2025-26 school year would not have provided the student appropriate reading and math instruction due to a lack of sufficient staffing. The complainants argue that this is evidenced by the proposed lunch schedule where the student would be late to their grade-level lunch so that they could receive reading services. Interviews with school staff and review of records confirm that there are no staffing concerns and that the district would have provided the student their reading and math instruction as specified in their IEP using appropriately licensed staff. The district’s position regarding the lunch schedule is that the student’s schedule needed to be rearranged to accommodate the parents’ requests that the student work with specific staff members and not with others.
Parents are allowed to request specific staff members and make their preferences known to the district, and while it is commendable that the district attempted to align the student’s schedule with these requests, they were not required to do so. Districts have discretion over the work assignments of their employees. The parents’ requests, and the district’s proposed schedule, are not at issue when it comes to the allegation of a lack of sufficient staffing as the district stood ready to have appropriately licensed staff implement the student’s math and reading specially designed instruction during the 2025 26 school year.
The complainant also raised concerns that the student’s speech and occupational therapy related service minutes would have been provided by educational assistants who were not licensed to provide these services during the 2025-26 school year. Interviews with school staff and a review of records confirm that the time that the student was scheduled to spend with educational assistants during the 2025-26 school year was in addition to, and not instead of, time that the student would spend with the speech-language pathologist and occupational therapist. The district properly provided sufficient staffing to implement the student’s IEP during the 2025-26 school year.
Student-level corrective action:
Within 20 days of the date of this decision, the district must reconvene the student’s IEP team to properly determine and describe the student’s educational placement for the 2025-26 school year. The district must also revise the student’s IEP to ensure all services in the IEP are described in a manner that makes the district’s commitment of resources clear to all involved in developing and implementing the IEP. The IEP team must also determine the amount of compensatory services owed to the student for the failure to properly implement the student’s IEP from September 3, 2024, to October 16, 2024. The district must submit the revised IEP to the department within 10 days of the date of that meeting. The district must develop a schedule for the student that accurately reflects decisions made about the student’s placement and services.
District-level corrective action:
Within 30 days of the date of this decision the district must submit to the department, for review, a corrective action plan to ensure that all IEPs are implemented as written, all educational placement decisions are made within the context of IEP team meetings, and all staff are properly trained on how to write statements of supplementary aids and services and specially designed instruction.
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