On October 6, 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(s) are whether the district, beginning October 6, 2024, properly developed the individualized education program (IEP) of a student with a disability to address the student’s attendance issues.
School districts must provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to each child with a disability. A district meets its obligation to provide FAPE to a child with a disability, in part, by providing special education and related services. 34 CFR §§ 300.320-300.324. When a child with a disability has a significant number of absences, the district has a duty to take timely action to provide the child FAPE. The district may modify the child's educational program or placement to address the absences. Each public agency must take steps to ensure that the parent of a student with a disability is present at each IEP team meeting or are afforded the opportunity to participate, including notifying the parent of the meeting early enough to ensure the parent will have an opportunity to attend and scheduling the meeting at a mutually agreed on time. 34 CFR § 300.322(a). A meeting may be conducted without parent participation if the school documents three good faith attempts.
The student who is the subject of this complaint is in eleventh grade and has IEP goals in the areas of reading, math, writing, and time on task. The IEP in place for the student in October 2024 noted that the student had not met any of their prior IEP goals. The IEP included goals in the areas of reading, writing, math, and behavior with specially designed instruction 20 minutes, two times per week each for writing and reading, 10 minutes, two times per week for math, 15 minutes, two times per week for behavior, and 10 minutes, two times per week for organization. Throughout the 2024-25 school year, the student’s attendance significantly decreased from 72 percent attending in 2023-24 to 57 percent attending in 2024-25.
At the parent’s request, the IEP team scheduled a review and revise meeting in early October 2024. The parent did not attend due to a misunderstanding regarding the time of the meeting and asked for the meeting to be rescheduled. The principal met with the parent on October 16, 2024, and they agreed to place the student on the “no pass list” to attempt to reduce the time the student spent in the halls out of class.
The IEP team convened on January 9, 2025, for the student’s annual IEP meeting. The parent was not able to attend. At the January 9, 2025, meeting, the team noted the student had not met any of the IEP goals and adjusted them slightly. The team also removed the student’s behavior goal and associated specially designed instruction, leaving the student with 10 minutes of instruction, two times per week for organization in addition to the prior IEP’s academic instructional minutes. The IEP team planned to meet again when the student’s parent could attend.
The team scheduled a meeting to review the student’s annual IEP with the parent on January 28, 2025; however, the parent was unable to attend and asked for the meeting to be rescheduled. The district responded with additional options, however in the meantime, the student received suspensions from school placing the student beyond 10 days of disciplinary removal for the school year. This resulted in the team needing to reconvene for a manifestation determination meeting, which occurred March 13, 2025. The district reviewed the student’s functional behavior assessment (FBA) and accompanying behavior intervention plan (BIP) as part of the meeting. The target behavior identified in the FBA included “an inability to work on and/or complete task(s) for extended periods of time” with the function of the behavior identified as “avoiding undesirable work and getting social stimulation.” The team reviewed prior interventions and their effectiveness, noting cues and reminders, help from regular education teachers and an option to respond in an oral versus written manner as semi-effective and incentives like playing basketball as effective. The team identified the student “completing their schoolwork in class and engaging with positive peers and the curriculum” as the replacement behavior that would be taught by modeling, frequent teacher check-ins, and reduced workload. The team identified preferential seating, non-verbal cueing, frequent teacher assistance, options to answer orally, reduced classwork, and pairing with positive peers as additional items that would support the student. However, the IEP team made no changes to the student’s IEP and did not incorporate the team’s discussion into the IEP.
The IEP team held a special education reevaluation meeting at the parent’s request on May 22, 2025. The parent and student attended the meeting. The student reported that they enjoyed the school but did not trust many of the adults there, and that many of the teachers responded to the student in a disrespectful manner. The student shared that they skipped classes when they did not like the class, the teacher, or when they did not find the class useful. The student also reported feeling embarrassed to be in class and shared a preference for classes that incorporate technology. The parent reported they wished the school would meet with the student to support them academically, take time to build trusted relationships with the student, and provide incentives to motivate the student. The parent shared that the student is highly motivated by basketball and expressed frustration that the student is no longer eligible to play basketball. The district had attempted to conduct academic testing with the student twice as part of the reevaluation; however, the student chose not to complete the testing during the two attempts. The district completed a behavior rating scale and executive functioning inventory and identified that the student struggled with sustaining attention, task initiation, vitality, and executive functioning and determined the student continued to qualify for special education.
On May 29, 2025, the IEP team held a review and revise meeting to update the IEP based on results of the reevaluation. The student’s present levels noted that the student had communication issues due to lack of trust and anxiety, that the student did not want to look different so lacked self-advocacy skills, and that the student lacked organization skills. All of the student’s disability related needs remained the same as the January 2025 IEP, with the exception of one addition: “Due to difficulty with attending classes on a regular basis, [student] is falling behind in all of [their] classes. This limits [their] progress in all academics as [they are] not able to progress in [their] classes at the same rate of [their] peers.” All of the student’s goals remained the same with the exception of goal four, which changed from “[Student] will improve [their] participation in independent work time in order to complete [their] work and show understanding of the grade level standards” to “[Student] will improve classroom engagement by arriving to class on time and remaining on task.” Further, the student’s specially designed instruction remained unchanged from the January 2025 IEP.
The student’s supplementary aids and services included a “check-in/check-out” process, however, its purpose was to document whether the student completed the in class assignment or activity, and not as an opportunity to strengthen student/staff relationships. Other accommodations that aligned with the student’s BIP included an allowance for assignment reduction of 25 percent, preferential seating, and options to answer assignment and test questions orally.
The district asserts that they made additional attempts to address the student’s attendance outside of truancy tickets. For example, staff attempted to assist the student in selecting engaging classes for the second semester of the 2024-25 school year, but the student did not meet with staff to make changes. The district also attempted the use of a staff escort for the student during passing times but found this ineffective.
However, the district did not make any substantive changes to the student’s IEP to address the attendance concerns. The district stated they chose not to make changes to the IEP at meetings the parent did not attend; however, the district also contends that the standard way specially designed instruction is written in IEPs does not allow for much flexibility for changes. Further, even when the parent attended the May 2025 IEP meeting, the team did not make changes to address the student’s attendance, even with the information from the reevaluation. For example, the student’s lack of trust with adults at school, anxiety, self-advocacy, lack of organization skills and other executive functioning skills were not addressed through the student’s IEP goals. Additionally, despite the student having not met any of their academic goals, the goals nor their associated specially designed instruction were adjusted. Finally, though a staff member began sending positive emails home after the reevaluation meeting, this is not part of the student’s IEP, and no other related services were considered during the May 2025 IEP review and revise meeting. The district did not properly develop the student’s IEP to address the student’s attendance issues.
Within 20 days of the date of this decision, the district is directed to convene an IEP meeting to address the student’s attendance using information obtained through the student’s reevaluation. Further, the district is directed to determine whether compensatory services are warranted based on their inaction in addressing the student’s attendance. Within 10 days of this IEP meeting, the district is directed to submit evidence that these activities have been completed to the department.
Further, the district is required to develop a corrective action plan to ensure all special education staff understand how to use data to develop IEPs, how to track and respond to student IEP goal progress or lack thereof, and how to design an IEP, including specially designed instruction, individualized to student needs. This plan should be submitted to the department for approval by January 30, 2026. 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