On July 2, 2002, the Department of Public Instruction received a complaint under state and federal special education law from XXXXX against the Madison Metropolitan School District. This is the department's decision regarding that complaint. The issues are whether the district, during an individualized education program (IEP) team meeting held on June 3, 2002, failed to:

• include in the IEP of a student with a disability a proper statement of the amount of speech and language services to be provided to the student;
• ensure that the IEP team determined the amount of speech and language services to be provided to the student; and
• ensure that the IEP team considered the parent's concerns for enhancing the education of her child.

On June 3, 2002, the district held an IEP team meeting to develop an annual IEP for the student. The student's mother participated in the meeting. The IEP developed for the student during the meeting states that he will receive the following special education services related to speech and language: 60 minutes per week of instruction in oral language skills from 6/03/02 to 1/01/03, and 30 minutes per week of instruction in oral language skills from 1/01/03 to 6/03/03. The IEP also requires consultation between teachers and the language therapist to assist with the development of functional communication skills across environments for 30 minutes per week from 6/03/02 to 1/01/03 and for 60 minutes per week from 1/01/03 to 6/03/03.

The IEP contains considerable, detailed information about the student's present level of educational performance in the area of speech and language. This information includes the student's strengths, current performance, test results, classroom observations, and comments/observations from the student's mother. In response to the mother's request during the meeting for more services, the district sent her written notice dated June 17, 2002, that the IEP team had considered her request for more speech and language services but concluded the amount included in the IEP was appropriate. The letter recommends to the mother that if she remains concerned about the issue when school resumes in the fall, she should contact the special education coordinator to hold another IEP team meeting to further consider her request for additional services. The student and his mother have since moved to Minnesota, and the student will not attend school in the district in the fall.

IEP teams must consider a parent's concerns for enhancing their child's education and the information they provide to the team regarding their child. IEP teams should work toward consensus, but the district is responsible for ensuring that the child's IEP includes appropriate services. The department concludes that the June 3 IEP includes a proper statement of the speech and language services to be provided to the student, that the IEP team determined the amount of speech and language services to be provided to the student, that the IEP team considered the parent's concerns regarding the amount of speech and language services to be provided to the student, and that the district properly notified the parent of its response related to her request for additional speech and language services.

This concludes our review of this complaint, which we are closing.

//signed CST 8/29/02
Carolyn Stanford Taylor
Assistant State Superintendent
Division for Learning Support: Equity and Advocacy

dec/smp