On June 7, 2001, the Department of Public Instruction received a complaint under state and federal special education law from XXXXX against the Racine Unified School District. This is the departments decision regarding that complaint. The issues are whether the district, during the 2000-2001 school year, failed to:
- include required participants during a February 21, 2001, individualized education program (IEP) team meeting for the student;
- implement the portions of the students February 21, 2001 IEP requiring the assistance of a special education aide and requiring contact with the students case manager during incidents on March 8, 27 and 29, 2001;
- determine the students need for extended school year (ESY) services following parent request; and
- determine the amount of homebound instruction based on the students individual needs, and not solely based on administrative convenience.
In its response to the complaint, the district acknowledged to the department that not all required participants attended an IEP team meeting held on February 21, 2001. Since that meeting, the district has held three IEP team meetings for the student that included the required participants. In addition, the district has already held meetings with school administrators and special education staff to review the requirements for IEP team meetings and IEP development, review and revision. The district has also prepared in-service training materials on these topics to distribute to new staff at the beginning of, and throughout, the 2001-2002 school year. The district must send the department documentation of these corrective activities by August 31, 2001.
The special education supervisor acknowledged to the department that, while the district did provide aide assistance to the student, it did not provide one-on-one aide assistance as required by the February 21, 2001 IEP. The district also acknowledged that it did not contact the students case manager during behavior incidents on March 8, 27, and 29, 2001, as required by the IEP. On April 4, 2001, the district convened the IEP team, including the complainant, to review and revise the students IEP, to conduct a manifestation determination and functional behavioral assessment, and to develop a behavioral intervention plan. The April 4 IEP includes the following special education services: one class period per day of team-taught math, one class period per day of study skills, and ten minutes of educational assistance at the beginning of classes. The April 4 IEP does not require one-on-one aide assistance for the student. The district has already undertaken corrective activities by holding meetings with school administrators and special education staff regarding the requirement to implement IEPs as written. Additional meetings are also planned with the new school principal and assistant principals. The district has also prepared in-service training materials on IEP implementation to distribute to new staff at the beginning of and throughout the 2001-2002 school year. The district must send the department documentation of these corrective activities by August 31, 2001.
On May 2, 2001, at the complainants request, the IEP team met to review and revise the IEP to provide temporary homebound instruction to the student. The IEP team discussed the students educational and behavioral needs and revised the IEP to require four hours of homebound instruction per week, provided by a teacher with whom the student had a good relationship. The IEP team determined that this amount of homebound instruction would allow the student to advance appropriately towards attaining his annual goals and progress in the general curriculum. The IEP team determined the amount of homebound services based upon the students needs, not solely on administrative convenience.
At the May 2, 2001 IEP team meeting, the complainant requested extended school year (ESY) services for the student. The LEA representative informed the complainant at the meeting that the IEP team would discuss and determine the students need for ESY services at the IEP team meeting planned for approximately one month later. On June 7, 2001, the IEP team met to review and revise the students IEP (including the behavior intervention plan) and determine placement. The district sent written notice of the IEP team meeting to the complainant and called the complainant about the meeting twice. The complainant informed the district that she would not attend the June 7 IEP team meeting and that she planned to home school the student during the 2001-2002 school year. At the June 7 IEP team meeting, the IEP team discussed ESY services and determined that the student did not need ESY services.
This concludes our review of this complaint.
Carolyn Stanford Taylor
Assistant State Superintendent
Division for Learning Support: Equity and Advocacy