On September 29, 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 issue identified is whether the district, beginning September 28, 2024, properly implemented the individualized education program (IEP) of a student with a disability regarding positive behavioral supports.
Whenever a student with a disability exhibits behaviors that impede 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). If a student displays inappropriate behavior despite having an IEP that includes behavioral supports, this may indicate that the behavioral supports in the IEP are not being appropriately implemented or are not appropriate for the student. In these situations, the IEP team should meet to review whether the supports and services are being implemented or whether the supports and services are effective and revise the IEP accordingly. The IEP team should also consider whether a functional behavioral assessment is necessary to better understand the function of the student's behavior. It is critical that services and supports are designed to support the needs of students with disabilities and ensure free appropriate public education are appropriately implemented to avoid an overreliance of exclusionary discipline in response to a student’s behavior. Questions and Answers: Addressing the Needs of Children with Disabilities and Individuals with Disabilities Education Acts (IDEAs) Discipline Provisions, U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, July 19, 2022.
The student who is the subject of this complaint was in eighth grade during the 2024-25 school year and is eligible for special education under the disability category of autism. A behavior intervention plan (BIP) was in place for the student at the start of the 2024-25 school year. The behavior of concern was documented as the use of inappropriate or offensive language with peers or adults when not in agreement or in order to continue to engage in preferred activities or avoid academic tasks. The BIP also documented three specific staff members who were to respond to the student if de-escalating assistance is needed. The student’s IEP in effect also documented behavior as a special factor and listed positive behavior interventions under supplementary aids and services that included allowing the student a safe, quiet space when dysregulated, foreshadowing scheduling changes, flexible seating options, classroom check-ins to ensure the student understands expectations, and debriefing with a trusted adult after becoming dysregulated.
On October 10, 2024, the IEP team met to review a new functional behavioral assessment (FBA) and update the student’s BIP. The IEP team described new student behaviors of concern including verbal aggression and derogatory gestures towards both students and staff when asked to put technology away and physical altercations with peers, which was listed as “physical altercations with peers (throwing objects, using objects to hit others when engaged in a negative social interaction).” Four new trusted adults were documented in the BIP as the designated individuals who would respond to the student if the student was demonstrating behaviors and needed redirection. The BIP included a crisis plan that outlined a very clear plan to assist the staff in addressing the student’s behaviors.
On May 19, 2025, the student was taking a break with one of the staff members named in the BIP. The staff member felt the student was calm and ready to return to class and directed the student to go to class. Another staff member, who is not named in the BIP, saw the student as well as other students, running through the halls. The staff member directed the student to return to class, but the student refused and continued to run through the hallways. Based on information provided by the district, the student encountered a teacher who previously worked with the student. The student began to yell and swear at their former teacher. The student’s former teacher was working with another student at the time. The student’s former teacher exited the building and the student continued to follow them. Upon re-entering the building, the student allegedly pushed another staff member aside who was standing in a doorway. The student’s parents were called to the school. During the time, the student was highly escalated, the four individuals documented in the crisis plan were not able to respond. Two of the individuals were absent, the other two individuals were unavailable to respond. The student was issued a three day suspension for this incident.
The student’s IEP team met on May 30, 2025, to review and revise the student’s IEP. Additionally, although one was not required, at the parents’ request the IEP team conducted a manifestation determination related to the May 19, 2025, incident. The IEP team continued the meeting on June 3, 2025. The student had been suspended for a total of five days during the 2024-25 school year, and the removals did not constitute a disciplinary change of placement. The IEP team updated the student’s BIP to include very specific language about how to redirect the student when they are dysregulated. Specific staff members were not named in the revised BIP. The BIP states that when the student is dysregulated only once calm and regulated may a staff member redirect the student to a safe space and will prompt the student to use previously taught coping strategies. During the manifestation determination review, the IEP determined that the student’s behavior was caused by and had a direct and substantial relationship to the student’s disability. The IEP team also indicated that the student’s behavior was the direct result of the school district not implementing the student’s IEP. When the student’s behavior was escalating on May 19, 2025, staff appropriately attempted to redirect the student to a designated area for a break, however they did not provide the student choices for a snack or alternative activity as required by the student’s BIP. The four staff members who were listed in the student’s BIP as the designated individuals to assist in de-escalating the student were not available and therefore did not respond to the incident. The district did not properly implement the student’s IEP regarding positive behavioral supports.
Given the unique circumstances of this case, no student specific corrective action is required. The district took appropriate action including updating the student’s IEP and BIP to address the student’s behaviors.
As a result of this incident, the district has engaged in monthly training for staff focused on social and emotional learning, conducting FBAs, and creating and implementing BIPs. Special education teachers, counselors, school psychologists, principals, assistant principals, and deans of students have been and will continue to engage in this training for the remainder of the school year. The department approves the district’s corrective action to address the noncompliance in this case. No additional district level corrective action is required.
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