IDEA Complaint Decision 10-055

On July 21, 2010, the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) received a complaint under state and federal special education law from XXXXX against Milwaukee Public Schools. This is the department’s decision regarding that complaint. The issues are whether the district, during the 2009-2010 school year:

  • properly developed an individualized education program (IEP) that addressed the student’s needs in the area of math,
  • timely conducted an annual review of the IEP,
  • properly implemented the student’s IEP regarding the provision of reading and math instruction, and
  • properly determined and implemented services when the student returned to the school district.

On February 19, 2009, an IEP team met to review and revise the student’s IEP, develop a transition statement, and determine continuing placement. The IEP provides special education services in math and reading, and includes both a reading and a math annual goal. On March 4, 2010, an IEP team met to review and revise the student’s IEP, develop a transition statement, and determine continuing placement. The student’s parent did not attend the meeting. The March 2010 IEP provided special education services in the areas of math, reading and language arts, and also included a reading/language arts goal and a math goal. In addition, the related service of social work services was added to the student’s IEP due to attendance concerns. During both IEP team meetings, the IEP team considered the individualized needs of the child and properly developed IEPs that addressed the student’s needs in the area of math. The special education services were also made available to the student during the 2009-2010 school year. The district acknowledges the March 4, 2010, annual review of the IEP was not conducted timely.

In April, the student transferred to another Wisconsin school district. On April 7, 2010, the district received a request for the student’s records from the other school district, and the records were provided. The student’s mother alleges that she contacted the MPS school he previously attended when the student returned to the district in May 2010. However, school staff stated that they were never informed of the student’s return, and there is no evidence the school was contacted.

By October 18, 2010, the district must provide the department with a corrective action plan to ensure, at the student’s school of attendance, IEP teams timely conduct an annual review of all student’s IEPs and an IEP team meeting is conducted to address attendance when there are significant student absences.

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.

//signed CST/SJP 9/20/10
Carolyn Stanford Taylor
Assistant State Superintendent
Division for Learning Support: Equity and Advocacy

Dec/jfd

For questions about this information, contact Patricia Williams (608) 267-3720