Issues in 1995 IDEA Complaint Decisions

95-001
Did the district provide, without parental consent, personally identifiable information from the education records of the complainant's son to a Rock County juvenile probation officer?

95-002
Did the district, after December 2, 1994, provide the complainant's son with special education and related services without the child having a current individualized education program (IEP)?

Did the district fail to include in the child's December 2, 1993, IEP the elements required by law?

Did the district fail, after completing the child's December 2, 1993, IEP, to develop a placement offer for the child consistent with the requirements of the law?

Did the district fail to provide specially designed physical education, speech and language therapy, and participation in recess as required by the child's December 2, 1993, IEP?

Did the district fail to initiate a multidisciplinary team (M-team) reevaluation of the child after the parents' May 24, 1994, request?

Did the district change the child's January 12, 1995, IEP without following proper procedures?

Did the district fail, during the 1993-94 school year, to provide the child with a regular education physical education class, as required by his IEP?

Did the district fail, during the 1994-95 school year, to provide the child with specially designed physical education, as required by his January 12, 1995, IEP?

95-003
Did the district fail to include, in the complainant's daughter's 1994-95 IEP a proper statement of the specific special education and related services to be provided and appropriate objective criteria and evaluation procedures and schedules for determining, on at least an annual basis, whether short-term instructional objectives are being achieved?

95-004
Did the district fail to provide the complainant parents with notice of the December 6/1994, M-team meeting a reasonable time prior to the meeting?

95-005
During the 1990-91 school year, did the district write IEPs that included placement decisions prior to scheduled IEP meetings?

Did the district fail to follow proper procedures for the initial identification, evaluation, IEP development, and placement of the complainant's son?

Did the district fail to follow proper procedures each time it revised the child's IEP?

Did the district fail to inform the complainant parent of her rights at the time of the child's first triennial evaluation?

Did the district fail to follow correct procedures when it terminated speech and language services at the end of the child's fifth grade year?

During the 1990-91 school year, did the district fail to follow proper procedures to address the complainant's son's need for appropriate behavior modification and psychological services?

Did the district fail to provide or to assist the parents in the provision of needed related services for the child?

Did the hearing officer (HO) and the independent reviewing officer (IRO) limit the scope of due process by refusing to rule on disputed procedural issues?

Did the IRO refuse to rule of disputed procedural errors of the district, matters previously resolved by the DPI through the EDGAR complaint process, and disputed due process hearing procedural issues?

Did the hearing officer and the IRO fail to use subpoena authority and seek additional evidence in the form of testimony and/or independent educational evaluation, as necessary, to rule on matters of the identification, evaluation, IEP development, placement, and reimbursement issues regarding the 1989 multidisciplinary team evaluation for a speech and language handicap?

Did the IRO impose limitations on the types of questions the parent could ask witnesses who did not testify at the district-level hearing?

Did the IRO fail to ensure the exchange of witness lists five days prior to a hearing?

Did the IRO fail to prohibit the introduction of new evidence not disclosed five days prior to a hearing?

Did the IRO err and cause delay when, in the absence of requests for extension from either party, he requested an extension of a non-specific amount of time in order to entertain briefs?

Did the IRO err and cause further delay when he split substantive from reimbursement issues and rendered two separate decisions five months apart?

Did the DPI fail to monitor the complainant's son's hearing and the IRO's review of the hearing for compliance with Part B requirements and fail to grant the parents' request for monitoring the district's timely compliance with the IRO's October 26, 1990, order?

Did the district fail to fully comply with the IRO's October 26, 1990, decision in which he directed that the district prepare an appropriate IEP that included chemistry and appropriate speech and language services?

Did the district fail to conduct a multidisciplinary team (M-team) evaluation of the complainant's son, which the parent requested prior to graduation?

Did the district fail to send a notice of change of placement prior to the complainant's son's graduation?

95-006
Did the district, at the time of the complainant's daughter's enrollment in kindergarten, fail to identify the child as a child suspected of having a learning disability?

Did the district fail to make a free appropriate public education available to the complainant's daughter from the 1985-86 school year through the current school year?

Did the district fail to ensure the impartiality of the hearing officer selected in response to the complainant's October 1988 hearing request on behalf of her daughter?

Does the State of Wisconsin's criteria for determining the presence of a learning disability violate Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the OSEP rulings published at 16 IDELR 1028?

Did the district refuse to apply the Part B procedures found at 34 CFR 300.540-543 when it evaluated the complainant's daughter for a learning disability in 1988?

Did the district refuse to apply the Part B procedures found at 34 CFR 300.540-543 when it evaluated the complainant's son for a learning disability in the spring of 1991?

Did the WDPI err in its decision relating to issue #1 in Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) complaint #89-004 when it failed to take into account that the complainant's daughter had not completed two years of school?

Did the district fail to implement a July 31, 1991, independent reviewing officer's (IRO's) order relating to her daughter?

Did the district fail to ensure that IEP meetings held for the complainant's daughter, pursuant to a July 31, 1991, IRO's order included all of the required participants?

Did the district fail to consider the results of an independent educational evaluation when it developed an IEP for the complainant's daughter pursuant to the IRO's July 31, 1991, order?

Did the district misinform the complainant about her right to contest the IEP developed for her daughter pursuant to the IRO's July 31, 1991, order?

Did the IRO split substantive from reimbursement issues and render separate decisions two and one half years apart?

Did the IRO refuse to examine and rule upon issues resolved by the department through its complaint process?

Did the IRO refuse to take additional evidence regarding substantive issues raised in the due process hearing?

Did WDPI fail to monitor the district's implementation of the IRO's July 31, 1991, order?

Did WDPI fail to respond to the parent's complaint that the district failed to comply with the IRO's July 31, 1991, order?

Did WDPI fail to ensure the finality of the IRO's decision regarding the complainant's daughter when the IRO rendered two nonappealable decisions?

Did WDPI fail to assist the complainant parent in obtaining an interim educational placement for her daughter during the pendency of administrative proceedings?

Did WDPI fail in the matter of the complainant's daughter's hearing to ensure that the hearing officer sent a written decision to the parties in a timely manner?

Did WDPI fail in the matter of the review of the complainant's daughter's hearing to ensure that the IRO sent a written decision to the parties in a timely manner?

95-007
During the 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94 school years, did the district fail to consider the complainant's son's need for extended school year (ESY) programming?

Did the district fail to follow proper procedures relating to the least restrictive environment when it placed the complainant's son in a summer school program during the summers of 1992, 1993, and 1994?

Did the district fail to use the IEP process to ensure that the complainant's son's individual needs were met during the summers of 1992, 1993, and 1994?

During the 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94 school years, did the district shorten the regular school year for the complainant's child when the district started related services later in the fall and ended them early in the spring?

Did the district fail to establish an eligibility analysis, policy, or procedure to provide an ESY program to a child who requires and ESY program in order to have a free appropriate public education?

Did the district fail to establish a requirement to inform parents of children with EEN of a child's right to an ESY program if an ESY program is required in order for the child to receive a free appropriate public education?

Did the Department of Public Instruction fail to identify through its monitoring that the district had not established the requirement to provide an ESY program to a child who requires an ESY program in order to have a free appropriate public education?

Did the Department of Public Instruction violate the IDEA when it required the complainants to provide specific facts relating to the involvement of children other than the complainant's child before stating a complaint issue to include all children with EEN in the district and refused to consider, investigate, and evaluate district policies, procedures, memoranda, and practices for compliance with IDEA requirements?

95-008
Did the district fail to provide the complainant's son with access to a word processor as required by his IEP?

Did the district fail to protect the confidentiality of personally identifiable information about the child when the district posted in classrooms information concerning the timeliness of the child's submittal of assignments in social studies and science and information concerning the child's bowel control?

95-009
Did the district routinely use pre-signed placement forms in violation of the law?

Did the district routinely use "canned" justifications for placement in violation of the law?

Did the department fail to adequately monitor the corrective action plan in Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) complaint #93-036?

Did the department refuse to consider a submission by the complainants in IDEA complaint #94-056?

Did the department violate the IDEA in its procedures in routinely limiting complainant input to written input in the complaint itself, not seeking any response by the complainants to submissions by school districts, and allowing school districts the opportunity to provide follow-up responses in oral interviews.

95-010
Did the district fail to provide speech and language therapy on a consistent basis in conformity with a proper statement of speech and language services in his IEP during the 1993-94 and 1994-95 school years?

95-011
Did the district, since February 24, 1995, fail to make available to the complainant's son a free appropriate public education (FAPE)?

Did the district, during the current school year, improperly change the provision of FAPE to the child when it implemented a behavior management plan that included physical restraint?

95-012
Did the district fail to conduct a M-team evaluation of a child in a timely manner pursuant to a 11/94 request?

95-013
Did the district fail to include in a 7/20/94 "Notice of Receipt of Referral and Consent for Evaluation" concerning the complainant's son, the content required at s PI 11.09 (1)(d)4., Wis. Admin. Code?

Did the district change the child's M-team evaluation without proper parental notice to include an assessment for suspected emotional disturbance?

Did the district fail to give the parent proper notice of an 8/30/94 M-team meeting for her son?

Did the district fail to consider a parentally obtained LD evaluation when it determined the child to be a child with EEN?

Did the district fail to ensure that all members of the child's M-team appointed after receipt of the 7/20/94 referral submitted written reports of their evaluations and findings?

Did the district's M-team fail to determine that the child exhibits deviant behavior in two or more of the child's social systems when the team determined the child has a handicapping condition of ED?

Did the district fail to complete the child's M-team evaluation process, initiated on 7/20/94, in a timely manner?

95-014
Did the district determine the complainant's son's extended school year (ESY) services in April 1995 based upon the district's summer program rather than on the child's needs?

95-015
Did the district fail to initiate a due process hearing pursuant to a 3/20/95 letter from the complainant?

Did the district fail to provide the complainant with copies of the educational records of the child who is the subject of the hearing request pursuant to the complainant's 3/20/95 letter?

95-016
Did the district fail to include the proper content in the complainant's son's 5/4/94 IEP?

Did the district fail to have a representative of the local education agency authorized to commit the resources of the district participate in the 5/4/94 IEP meeting for the complainant's son?

Did the district fail to provide the parent with proper notice of a 5/4/94 IEP meeting?

Did the district fail to properly document that the child's 5/6/94 placement is the least restrictive environment?

Did the district determine the child's placement for the 1995-96 school year prior to developing the child's IEP?

Did the district fail to have a comprehensive personnel development plan and fail to provide its staff with the training needed to offer a full continuum of placement options?

95-017
Did the district fail to appoint a hearing officer to conduct a due process hearing and to issue a written decision within 45 days of the complainant's March 1995 request for a due process hearing?

95-018
Did the district fail to provide the complainants' son with special education and related services after he stopped attending the Wisconsin School for the Deaf in November 1994?

Did the district fail to complete a multidisciplinary team (M-Team) reevaluation of the child during the current school year in a timely manner?

95-019
Did the district fail to provide a free appropriate public education to the complainant's son from 4/7/95 through 5/12/95?

Did the district fail to hold an IEP meeting after the complainant's son was suspended?

Did the district fail to provide a new placement notice to the complainant parent when her son was suspended?

Did the district fail to complete a timely multidisciplinary team evaluation, IEP, and placement when the complainant's son transferred to Baraboo Junior High School in the fall of 1994?

Did the district fail to include supplementary aids and services in the complainant's son's IEP to allow for successful participation in the extra-curricular activity of basketball?

95-020
Did the district fail to insure that a due process hearing was conducted in a timely manner following the complainants' November 14, 1994, hearing request?

95-021
Did the district fail to involve parents of children with disabilities in the development of the district's 1992-93 IDEA flow-through project application?

95-022
Beginning in January 1995, did the district provide special education to a child without having an individualized education program (IEP) in effect for the child?

95-023
Did the district fail to provide the complainant's son with transportation for field trips in April 1994 in the least restrictive environment?

Did the district fail during the 1994-95 school year to provide the complainant's son with a sign language interpreter; physical therapy; physical education; school guidance counseling; an FM auditory trainer; and required instruction related to walking and the use of an adapted computer software program to complete modified worksheet assignments?

Did the district fail to address transition in the child's April 1995 IEP?

95-024
Did the district fail to meet the parental participation requirements relating to the development of the August 23, 1994, IEP?

Did the district fail to meet the parental participation requirements relating to the development of the June 7, 1995, IEP?

95-025
Did the district fail to comply with the complainant's request for a review of her child's entire educational records within 45 days of the request?

95-026
Did the district fail to complete their child's December 1992 multidisciplinary team (M-team) reevaluation in a timely manner?

Did the district fail, during their child's December 1992 M-team reevaluation, to evaluate the child in all areas related to her suspected handicapping conditions?

Did the district fail to provide the complainant parents proper written notice of their child's January 7, 1994, IEP meeting?

Did the district fail to include present levels of educational performance for each annual goal in their child' 8/20/93 and 1/13/94 IEPs?

Did the district fail to include the required participants in their child's 8/20/93 IEP meeting?

Did the district fail to implement provisions relating to the extent to which their child would participate in the regular education program in the child's 8/20/93 and 1/13/94 IEPs?

Did each member of their child's 11/22/94 M-team fail to submit reports of the evaluations they conducted to the district's director of special education with the proposed M-team report?

Following the complainant parents' 12/13/94, written request for an explanation of an education record, did the district fail to provide the requested explanation and then destroy the record that was the subject of the request?

Did their child's current IEP fail to contain short-term objectives for each annual goal?

In adding occupational therapy services to their child's IEP during a 2/2/95 IEP meeting, did the district fail to include an evaluation component for each short-term objective?

Did the district deny the complainant parents equal participation at their child's 2/2/95 IEP meeting?

Did the district fail to provide the complainant parents with a complete set of their child's educational records within 45 days of their 4/25/95 request?

95-027
Did the district fail to include proper annual goals and short-term objectives for IEPs in effect during the 1994-95 school year?

Did the district's IEPs in effect fail to contain the required elements relating to determining the least restrictive environment?

Did the district fail to give the parents prior written notice of their children's M-team and IEP meetings a reasonable amount of time prior to the meetings?

Did the IEP meetings conducted by the district fail to include the required participants?

Did the district deny a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to children with an EEN related to behavior by failing to provide special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs?

95-028
Did the district fail to comply with the parent participation requirements of the law when it conducted a 7/15/94 IEP meeting to review extended school year (ESY) services for the complainants' son?

Did the district improperly terminate the child's ESY services in July 1994?

95-029
Did the district fail to have in effect an individualized education program (IEP) for the complainant's son that contains a proper statement of the child's current levels of educational performance and proper annual goals and short-term objectives?

Did the district fail to address the child's need for transportation as a related service?

Did the district improperly suspend the child from school?

Did the district determine the child's participation in the regular education program based upon a building-level policy that excludes children with emotional disturbance enrolled in self-contained programs?

Did the district improperly divulge personally identifiable information about the child to police and probation authorities?

Did the district fail to provide the child with instruction in art in accordance with state standards?

95-030
Did the district determine the complainant's son would be placed in a self-contained classroom for reading, writing, language and spelling prior to developing the child's IEP?

Did the district fail to provide the parent with an opportunity to participate in the development of the child's IEP consistent with the requirements of 34 CFR 300.345?

Did the district fail to include in the child's IEP a proper statement of educational interpreter services to be provided to the child?

95-031
Did the district use unqualified individuals to provide the complainant's daughter with IEP-related instruction during a July 1993 field trip and at other times during the 1994-95 school year?

Did the district provide transition services to the complainant's son in July 1995 without having in effect an IEP that includes a statement of transition services?

Did the district fail to state in the complainant's son's 11/7/94 IEP the district's commitment of special education and related services?

Did the district graduate the complainant's daughter without completing her IEP goals and objectives?

Did the district fail to provide the complainant with proper notice of her daughter's graduation?

95-032
This complaint was withdrawn prior to a decision.

95-033
Did the district fail to appoint a surrogate parent to protect the rights of the child named in the complaint?

95-034
Did the district fail to provide speech and language services consistent with her IEP after January 1995 to a child with EEN?

Did the district change the child's IEP and program without complying with the required procedures?

Did the district fail to continue the child's speech and language services during the pendency of the appeal of the child's March 1995 M-team evaluation?

95-035
Does the district provide specially designed vocational instruction to children with EEN at Central Wisconsin Center (CWC) based upon the availability of the instruction rather than upon each child's needs?

95-036
Did the district fail to obtain substitute educational interpreters for the complainant's son and daughter when their interpreters were absent in October, November, and December 1995?

Did the district use unqualified individuals as educational interpreters to assist the complainant's son and daughter in October and December 1995?

Did the district improperly schedule the child, an eighth grader, in a seventh grade physical education class for the current school year?

95-037
Did the district fail to complete in a timely manner a multidisciplinary team (M-team) evaluation of the complainant's daughter that was initiated in June 1995?

Did the district require the parent to provide consent as a condition of performing a psychological evaluation of the complainant's daughter when consent was not required?

95-038
Did the district fail to provide special education and related services to the complainant's son consistent with an IEP in September, October, and November 1995?

Did the district fail to include a representative of the county Department of Health and Human Services at the 10/31/95 IEP meeting?

95-039
This complaint was withdrawn.

95-040
Did the district suspend the complainants' son from 11/6/95 through 11/28/95 and on 12/1 and 12/4/95, resulting in a change of educational placement, without following proper procedures?

95-041
Did the district fail to propose to the complainants a change in the provision of FAPE when the district changed the provision of speech and language services to the complainants' child?

Did the district fail to ensure that all of the speech and language therapy required by the child's IEP was provided by qualified staff?

95-042
Did the district fail to propose to the complainants a change in the provision of FAPE when the district changed the provision of speech and language services to the complainants' child?

Did the district fail to ensure that all of the speech and language therapy required by the child's IEP was provided by qualified staff?

95-043
Did the district fail to propose to the complainants a change in the provision of FAPE when the district changed the provision of speech and language services to the complainants' child?

Did the district fail to ensure that all of the speech and language therapy required by the child's IEP was provided by qualified staff?

95-044
Did the district, in September 1995, reduce the complainants' child's school schedule to one and one-half hours per day and reduce his special education and related services without following proper procedures?

Did the district fail to send the child's parents a placement offer after the district changed the child's IEP in September 1995?

Did the district, from 11/9 to 11/15/95, provide special education to the child without having an IEP in effect?

Did the child's 11/15/95 IEP contain a proper statement of the specific special education and related services to be provided to the child?

Did the district revise the child's 1995-96 school year IEP to include short-term instructional objectives relating to behavior without following proper procedures?

Did the district fail to provide the child with a change in placement by 12/6/95?

Did the child's 11/16/95 placement notice contain an accurate description of the action proposed by the district?

During the current school year, did the district fail to make physical education available to the child?

During the current school year, did the district require the child's mother to stay with the child as a condition of the child receiving special education and related services?

95-045
During the current school year, did the district fail to notify the complainant of the findings of a multidisciplinary team (M-team) reevaluation of her son and fail to conduct an IEP meeting following the reevaluation?

95-046
Did the district fail to provide timely transportation to the complainant's child, consistent with his current IEP during the current school year?