On June 5, 2013, the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) received a complaint under state and federal special education law from XXXXX against the Kenosha Unified School District. This is the department’s decision regarding that complaint. The issue is whether the district, during the 2012-13 school year, properly developed an individualized education program (IEP) to address the student’s behavioral needs.
On February 4, 2013, the child’s guardian made a referral for a special education evaluation. On March 28, an IEP team determined the student met the criteria for other health impairment and determined the child was a child with a disability in need of special education. On April 18, the IEP team developed the student’s initial IEP. In developing the IEP, the team, as required, considered the strengths of the student, the concerns of the child’s parents, the results of the initial evaluation of the student, and the academic, developmental, and functional needs of the student. The student’s present levels of academic achievement and functional performance provided a description of the student’s behavior, which included a discussion of how and when the previous regular education supports and interventions were effective. The IEP identified behavior as a special factor and included positive supports, interventions, and other strategies to address the behavior. These included one on one/small group support, immediate positive reinforcement, stickers, visual timer, visual schedule, ignoring minor disruptions, re-establishing expectations, and meeting with the school social worker. Two goals addressing behavior were also included in the IEP. On April 22, the child’s guardian signed the consent for placement, and the district began implementing the IEP. On May 17, an IEP team meeting was conducted to review and revise the student’s IEP, determine continued placement, and develop a behavior intervention plan based on a functional behavior assessment. The functional behavior assessment included classroom observations of the student. The IEP added a behavior intervention plan with a six point support plan. The child’s guardian attended and participated in all three IEP team meetings. During the 2012-13 school year, the district properly developed an IEP to address the student’s behavioral needs.
This concludes our review of this complaint, which we are closing.
//signed CST 7/16/2013
Carolyn Stanford Taylor
Assistant State Superintendent
Division for Learning Support