On June 22, 2007, the Department of Public Instruction received a complaint under state and federal special education law from XXXXX against the Elmbrook Schools. This is the departments decision regarding that complaint. The issue is whether the district properly responded, consistent with 34 CFR §§300.618-300.620, to a parents requests, between January and March 2007, to amend information in his childs records because he believes it is inaccurate, misleading, or otherwise in violation of the privacy or other rights of the child.
If a parent believes information in pupil records is inaccurate, misleading or violates the privacy or other rights of the child, the parent may request the school district to amend the information. If the district decides not to amend the information, it must inform the parent of the refusal, and advise the parent of the right to a hearing to review the districts decision.
If, as a result of the hearing, the district decides that the information is inaccurate, misleading, or otherwise in violation of the privacy or other rights of the child, it must amend the information accordingly and inform the parent in writing. If the district decides the information is not inaccurate, misleading, or otherwise in violation of the privacy or other rights of the child, it must inform the parent of the right to place in the records a statement commenting on the information or stating the reasons for disagreeing with the districts decision. The parents statement must be maintained by the district as part of the childs pupil records as long as the contested information is maintained by the district.
An Individualized Education Program (IEP) team meeting was held for the student on March 22, 2007, for the purpose of developing an annual IEP and placement. The parent requested information regarding the 2001-2002 school year be documented in the IEP. The district placed this information in the area for documenting parental concerns. The final copy of the IEP that was sent to the parents contained the information from 2001-2002 school years. Upon review of the IEP, the district determined that the information the parent wanted included was not current or relevant and should not have been placed in the March 2007 IEP.
An IEP team meeting was held for the student on May 25, 2007, for the purpose of IEP review and revision and to consider removal of the language pertaining to the 2001-2002 school year that was contained in the March 2007 IEP. The father was in attendance at this IEP team meeting. Parental concerns regarding the students educational program were noted in the IEP. There was also discussion during the meeting as to the relevancy of the 2001-2002 information the parent wanted to include. The district determined the paragraph in question was not relevant to the students current placement or goals and would not be included in the May 2007 IEP. The parent alleges during this IEP team meeting he verbally requested that the language be included. While the parent characterizes his request as a request to amend or correct pupil records, his request actually related to a disagreement about the content to be included in an IEP. During the course of this investigation, the district sent a Notice of Response to an Activity Requested by a Parent indicating the district would not place the paragraph in question into the IEP and giving the reason for its decision. The Notice provided by the district was an appropriate response to the parents request.
This concludes our review of this complaint, which we are closing.
//signed CST 8/21/07
Carolyn Stanford Taylor
Assistant State Superintendent
Division for Learning Support: Equity and Advocacy