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 issues are identified below and address the 2024-25 and 2025-26 school years, beginning on September 29, 2024.
Whether the district properly determined and changed placement, including shortening the student’s day.
In Wisconsin, each student's individualized education program (IEP) team must determine the student's educational placement, and the placement determination must be made through an IEP team meeting. Wis. Stat. § 115.78(2). Placement determinations must be made in conformity with the least restrictive environment requirements, which requires that students with disabilities receive their education in the regular classroom to the maximum extent appropriate. Special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment should be used only 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. 34 CFR §§ 300.114-300.116.
Shortening a student’s school day is considered a change of placement. It is only appropriate to shorten the length of the school day for a student with a disability if the student’s IEP team determines a shortened day is required to address the student’s unique disability-related needs. This should be a very rare occurrence. Before deciding to shorten the student’s day, the IEP team must consider if there are other ways to meet the student’s needs. When a student’s school day is shortened, the student’s IEP must include an explanation of why the student’s disability-related needs require a shortened day, and a plan for the student’s return to school for a full day, including a plan to meet more frequently to review student data and determine whether the student is able to return to school full-time. The student should return to a full school day as soon as they are able, and under most circumstances, a shortened school day should be in place for a limited amount of time. Shortened school days may not be used to manage student behavior or as a means of discipline.
The student who is the subject of this complaint has been identified as a student with a disability under the disability category of Other Health Impairment. The student performs above average in math and reading and is described by staff as an exceptionally bright student. The student has disability related needs relating to fine motor and visual motor skills, sustaining focus, and self-management. The student began the 2024-25 school year as a kindergarten student placed in the regular education classroom, and the IEP in effect provided for specially designed instruction in building self-management skills twice daily for 15 minutes per session, and occupational therapy (OT) for 20 minutes per week. The IEP identified the student’s behavior as a special factor and included numerous positive interventions and supports such as visual schedules and timers, adult support, breaks, sensory tools, modeling, and breaking tasks into smaller management steps to help the student maintain focus. A functional behavioral assessment (FBA), however, has never been conducted for the student.
On October 4, 2024, the IEP team met and determined that the student would receive their educational services in the special education resource room because their sensory needs and difficulties with self-management were interfering with their learning and the learning of others in the regular education classroom. Some of the behaviors described were leaving class, throwing things, not understanding personal boundaries, and refusing to participate in activities. The IEP team believed that a more structured environment would give the student an opportunity to focus on their sensory needs and practice using their social and emotional skills. As documented in the IEP, the plan was for the student to return to the regular education classroom as the student’s self-regulation increased.
On October 16, 2024, the student began attending school from 7:45 am to 12:00 pm on a shortened day. The student continued to receive the specially designed instruction and OT as required by their IEP. However, this shortened day placement was not determined through an IEP team meeting. Rather, a note was added to the IEP stating that the shortened day placement was based on the student’s unique needs as it would allow the student to gradually build stamina, reduce anxiety, and manage the stress the student experienced during transitions. The note further stated that progress would be reviewed every four weeks, and daily tracking would be used to monitor progress. A daily tracking sheet was implemented but no additional IEP team meetings were held to discuss increasing the length of the student’s school day.
On April 11, 2025, a significant behavioral incident occurred, which prompted the school district to seek an out-of-district placement. On April 13, 2025, district staff informed the parent that the student would be placed on homebound instruction from April 14, 2025, through April 18, 2025, until the student could begin attending the new placement. The student received packets prepared by their teachers during this time, but no direct instruction was provided. On April 15, 2025, the student’s IEP team met to revise the IEP to reflect the new placement, and transportation was added as a related service. On April 22, 2025, the student began attending the out-of-district alternative program, and the student is continuing in this placement for the 2025-26 school year.
The district did not properly determine and change the student’s placement during the 2024-25 school year. The shortened day placement was made outside of an IEP team meeting, and there was no plan in place to return the student to a full school day as soon as possible. Although staff collected data on the student’s progress, the IEP did not meet to review the data or discuss increasing the length of the school day. In addition, the IEP team did not review whether the positive behavioral supports in the student’s IEP were effective in addressing the student’s behavior and did not conduct a FBA to better understand the student’s behavior and behavioral needs. The decisions to place the student on homebound and in an out-of-district alternative program were also made outside of an IEP team meeting. Although the student’s IEP team meeting on April 22, 2025, revised the student’s IEP to reflect the new placement, the decision to place the student in an out-of-district placement was made prior to that meeting, as documented in the April 13, 2025, email informing the parent that the student would be placed on homebound until the out-of-district placement could begin.
As student specific corrective action, the district must conduct an IEP team meeting within 20 days of this decision to determine the compensatory services for improperly changing the student’s placement, including shortening the student’s day, and to review the student’s placement to ensure the out-of-district placement continues to be appropriate for the student. Within 10 days of the IEP team meeting, the district must submit to the department a copy of the IEP documenting this discussion and decision. As district wide corrective action, the district must submit a corrective action plan within 30 days of this decision to ensure that placement decisions are made through IEP team meetings and in accordance with the least restrictive requirements, and that when a student’s day is shortened, there is a plan in place that includes conducting frequent IEP team meetings to ensure that the student is returned to a full day as soon as possible.
Whether the district improperly utilized seclusion and restraint.
State law prohibits the use of seclusion and physical restraint by school staff 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. 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. Wis. Stats. §§ 118.305(2); 118.305(3). When seclusion is used, staff must maintain constant supervision of the student, either by remaining in the room or area with the student or by observing the student through a window that allows staff to see the student at all times. The room or area must be free of objects or fixtures capable of causing harm and cannot have a door capable of being locked. Wis. Stats. §§ 118.305(2).
Physical restraint means a restriction that immobilizes or reduces the ability of a student to freely move their torso, arms, legs, or head. The use of a mechanical restraint on a student is not permitted. Supportive equipment used to properly align a student’s body, assist a student to maintain balance, or assist a student’s mobility, under the direction and oversight of appropriate medical or therapeutic staff, is not considered mechanical restraint. The use of vehicle safety restraints is also permitted under state law when they are used as intended during the transport of a student in a moving vehicle. Wis. Stats. §§ 118.305(3)(f).
During the 2024-25 school year, the student received much of their instruction in a special education resource room. On occasion, when the student became dysregulated, staff would stand near or outside the door to avoid being hit with objects. However, the student was not secluded because at no time were they prevented from leaving.
When the student began attending the out-of-district placement in April 2025, a lock was placed over the student’s seat belt to make it more difficult for the student to leave their seat. The lock could be released with a key or any object that could pop open the locking device. The device was not included in the student’s IEP. Although the use of a vehicle safety restraint is permitted under state law, whether its use is required must be discussed by the IEP team and documented in the student’s IEP. The district has stopped using the lock, and no further corrective action is required.
Whether the district properly followed special education disciplinary procedures.
After a student has been subjected to 10 days of disciplinary removal in a school year, during subsequent removals, the district must provide each student services to the extent necessary to enable them to continue to participate appropriately in the general curriculum, although in another setting, and to progress toward achieving the student’s IEP goals. 34 CFR § 530(d)(1)(i). If a student goes home based on a decision by the district or when the district asks the family to take the student out of school due to the student’s conduct, the removals are considered de facto suspensions and should be counted as disciplinary removals.
A disciplinary change of placement occurs when the student's removal is for more than 10 consecutive school days or when a series of removals constitutes a pattern because the removals total more than 10 cumulative school days in a school year, the behavior is substantially similar to the behavior in previous incidents, and additional factors such as the length of each removal, the total amount of time the student has been removed, and the proximity of the removals to one another. 34 CFR §300.536(a). When a student with a disability is subject to a potential disciplinary change of placement, the district must determine whether the student’s conduct is a manifestation of the student’s disability within 10 school days of the decision to change placement. 34 CFR § 300.536.
During the 2024-25 school year, staff contacted the student’s parent on numerous occasions when they were unable to assist the student to become more regulated after a period of time. On some of these occasions, the parent would talk to the student, which helped the student become regulated. At other times, the parent said they would come and pick up the student for the rest of the day. However, on a few occasions, the parent was directly asked to pick up the student. Staff did not track when this occurred, and these were not counted as disciplinary removals. When a parent is asked to pick up a student due to the student’s behavior, this is considered a de facto suspension and must be counted as a disciplinary removal. In addition, when the student was placed on homebound for five days following a behavioral incident, these days should have also been counted as disciplinary removals. The district did not properly follow special education disciplinary procedures. Within 30 days from the date of this decision, the district must submit a corrective action plan to ensure that disciplinary removals are properly counted.
Whether the district properly implemented the student’s IEP regarding positive behavior supports, specially designed instruction, and related services.
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. Each student’s IEP must address the student's needs that result from the student's disability in order to enable the student to be involved and make appropriate progress in the general education curriculum and toward their IEP goals and meet the student's other educational needs that result from the student's disability. The IEP must include a statement of the special education services to be provided to the student. 34 CFR §§300.320(a), 300.324(a). Specialized transportation is considered a related service. The student’s IEP team determines, based on the student's unique, disability-related needs, whether the student needs specialized transportation to benefit from their special education and, if so, how specialized transportation services will be provided. 34 CFR § 300.107.
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.
Districts must ensure that the student's IEP is accessible to each regular education teacher, special education teacher, related services provider, and any other service provider who is responsible for its implementation and that they are informed of their specific responsibilities. 34 CFR § 300.323(d).
During the 2024-25 school year, the behavioral supports specified in the student’s IEP were implemented as written. Interviews with staff demonstrated that staff were aware of the behavioral supports required by the IEP and that they implemented them both when the student was attending a full school day and when the student was attending a shortened day. The specially designed instruction in self-management skills was also provided throughout the 2024-25 school year and continues to be provided during the 2025-26 school year. The student did not receive the 20 minutes per week of occupational therapy until April 22, 2025, when the student began attending the out-of-district placement. No OT has been provided to the student since then, although it is still required by the student’s IEP. On the first day of the 2025-26 school year, transportation was not provided as the van never arrived at the student’s house, and the parent had to transport her child to the off-site placement. Transportation has been provided since then, however, on the second school day, the student was dropped off at another location where no adult was home. The parent was unaware that the child was dropped off at the other location, and the child was left unattended for a period of time. The district and the parent have developed an information sheet for the van driver to avoid this situation happening again. It lists the only approved drop-off location, contacts, seating preferences, and strategies to support the student when they are being transported. The district did not properly implement the student’s IEP with regard to occupational therapy and the one day of missed transportation.
The district must conduct an IEP team meeting within 20 days from the date of this decision to determine whether compensatory services are required for the failure to provide occupational therapy since April 2025, and to determine whether the student continues to require this related service. Within 10 days from the date of the meeting, the district must submit to the department a copy of the IEP documenting these decisions. The district must also provide reimbursement per the district’s mileage reimbursement policy for the one day the parent provided transportation at the beginning of the 2025-26 school year.
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