Issues in 1997 IDEA Complaint Decisions

97-001
  1. Did the district fail to have an administrative representative present at the student's individualized education program (IEP) meetings on March 14, 1996, and June 3, 1996?

  2. Did the district fail to include a statement regarding community experiences in the student's IEP, dated March 14, 1996?

  3. Did the district fail to invite the student to his IEP meetings on March 14, 1996, and June 3, 1996?

  4. Did the district fail to address the transition to adult basic education classes in the student's IEP, dated June 3, 1996?

  5. Did the district fail to follow appropriate transition procedures when the district did not invite a representative of Gateway to the student's June 3, 1996, IEP meeting?

97-002
Did the district fail to provide vision services consistent with complainant's child's individualized education program (IEP) during the 1996-97 school year?

97-003
This complaint was withdrawn.

97-004
This complaint was withdrawn.

97-005

  1. Did the district fail to follow proper procedures when it revised the individual education programs (IEPs) of children at Stoker Elementary School receiving speech and language services?

  2. Did the district revise the IEPs of children receiving speech and language services at Stoker Elementary School based upon the availability of such services and not upon each child's need?

  3. Did the IEPs of children receiving speech and language services at Stoker Elementary School fail to include a clear statement of the speech and language services to be provided to each child?

97-006

  1. Did the district fail to include a representative of the Bayfield County Department of Community Programs in the complainant's son's November 13, 1996, individualized education program (IEP) meeting?

  2. Did the district fail to take other steps to obtain participation of the Bayfield County Department of Community Programs in the planning of transition services for the complainant's son?

  3. Did the district fail to comply with the provision of complainant's son's November 13, 1996, individualized education program (IEP) which required that an assistive technology assessment be completed by January 31, 1997?
97-007
During the current school year, did the school district fail to provide the complainant's son with required special education when it excluded him from school?

97-008
This complaint was withdrawn.

97-009

  1. Did the district, during the 1996-97 school year, fail to implement the child's individualized education program (IEP) when he was placed in a "time out" room and on days when he was excluded from school?

  2. Did the district, during the 1996-97 school year, fail to allow the child to participate in the regular education environment during lunch, consistent with the child's IEP?

  3. Did the district fail to conduct a multidisciplinary team (M-team) reevaluation of the child when requested by the parent in January 1997?

  4. Did the district, during the 1996-1997 school year fail to provide the child with needed related services?

97-010

  1. Did the DPI fail to provide adequate technical support to school districts so that the department's guidelines relating to children with EEN who take the Wisconsin Reading Comprehension Test (WRCT), also known as "the third grade reading test," would be implemented across Wisconsin?

  2. Does DPI's monitoring of school districts fail to adequately evaluate school districts' compliance with the requirements relating to the participation of children with EEN in the Wisconsin Student Assessment System (WSAS)?
97-011
Did the district deny the complainant's son a free appropriate public education (FAPE) during the 1996-97 school year by repeatedly suspending him from school?

97-012

  1. Did the district fail to refer the complainant's son for evaluation for suspected EEN when aware of the need?

  2. During the 1995-96 school year, did the district fail to honor the complainant's request that his son be evaluated by a multidisciplinary team for a suspected EEN?

97-013

  1. Did the district fail to provide the related service of physical therapy to the complainant's son throughout the 1993-94, 1994-95, and up to December 16, 1996, of the 1995-96 school year?

  2. Did the district fail to implement the corrective action plan (CAP) which was submitted to the department on January 17, 1994?
97-014
Did the district fail to secure the complainant's written consent before sharing personally identifiable information about the complainant's son with other parents?

97-015

  1. Did the district deny a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to the complainant's son when the district failed to provide transportation to the student's transition services required by the child's current individualized education program (IEP)? in abeyance

  2. Did the district violate the complainant's son's right to privacy when the district shared personally identifiable information about the complainant's son with personnel from the University of Wisconsin-River Falls without the complainant's written permission? in abeyance

  3. During the 1996-97 school year, did the district improperly suspend the complainant's son and fail to provide him with services required by his individualized education program (IEP) during the periods of his suspensions?

  4. Did the district fail to protect the privacy of the complainant's son when the special education director shared information about the child from a private therapist with other district personnel?
97-016
Did the district fail to conduct a review of child's August 23, 1994, IEP, as required by 34 CFR 300.343?

97-017
This complaint was withdrawn.

97-018

  1. Did the district fail to identify, locate, evaluate, and provide needed special education and related services to pupils currently enrolled in the Phoenix Program?

  2. During the current school year, did the district fail to make available, consistent with the requirements of the law, physical education to children with EEN enrolled in the Phoenix Program?

  3. During the current school year, did the district fail to include a proper statement of needed transition services in the individualized education programs (IEPs) of children with EEN enrolled in the Phoenix Program?

  4. During the current school year, did the district fail to ensure that children with EEN enrolled in the Phoenix Program are placed in the least restrictive environment?

97-019

  1. Was the Washburn School District in compliance with the maximum EEN class size for the elementary special needs delivery system (SNDS) unit(s) during the 1995-96 and 1996-97 school years?

  2. Did the Washburn School District fail to consult with private school representatives during the development and design of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) flow-through grant applications for the 1995-96 and 1996-97 school years?

97-020

  1. Did the district fail to implement provisions in the child's IEP developed on August 22, 1996, concerning the amount of daily small group direct instruction, access to assistive technology, completion of reading comprehension activities, the use of two-column notes, checking for the child's understanding in content area classes, the writing of assignments and due dates on the board, the presentation of materials from whole to parts, the use of a visual timeline, the exploration of time management strategies, the use of a personal calendar and daily assignment notebook, a plan related to the child's absences from school, and the provision of multiple trial learning experiences and a class syllabus?

  2. Did the district fail to implement revisions in the child's IEP made during a February 7, 1997, IEP meeting?

  3. Did the district fail to provide the child's parent with a placement offer and proper notice following the completion of the child's February, 7, 1997, IEP?

97-021

  1. Did the district fail to complete the child's current multidisciplinary-team (M-team) evaluation, individualized education program (IEP), and placement offer within the required time period?

  2. During the current school year, did the district provide special education services to the child without a current M-team evaluation, current IEP, or the parent's consent?
97-022
Did the district fail to send the complainants a placement offer within 90 days of the date the board received an EEN referral on their daughter?

97-023
During the 1995-96 school year and the first semester of the 1996-97 school year, did the district fail to refer and evaluate the complainant's son for suspected exceptional education needs?

97-024

  1. Did the district fail to provide the complainant parent with the multidisciplinary team (M-team) members' individual reports at an M-team meeting on March 5, 1996?

  2. During the 1995-1996 school year, did the district fail to complete an M-team re-evaluation of the complainant's son in a timely manner?

  3. Did the district fail to implement objectives numbered 2 & 3 on page 6 of the complainant's son's 1996-97 school year individualized education program (IEP)?
97-025
Did the district, during the 1996-97 school year, fail to conduct a timely multidisciplinary team (M-team) reevaluation of the complainant's son?

97-026
This complaint was withdrawn.

97-027
Did the district, during the 1996-97 school year, suspend a child excessively in violation of the law?

97-028
This complaint was withdrawn.

97-029

  1. Did the district fail to follow the proper procedures during the 1996-97 school year when the child's individualized education program (IEP) and placement were changed to require the child to attend night classes?

  2. Did the district fail to provide the child with a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) when a series of short-term suspensions resulted in a pattern of exclusion that constituted a significant change in the child's placement?

  3. Did the district fail to provide the child's parent with prompt notice of a suspension and the reason for the suspension, which occurred on or about April 9, 1997?

97-030
This complaint was withdrawn.

97-031
This complaint was withdrawn.

97-032
In April 1997, did the district divulge, without parental consent, confidential information concerning the complainant's daughter to staff of the LaSalle Clinic?

97-033
Did the district, during the 1996-97 school year, fail to conduct a timely multidisciplinary team (M-team) evaluation of the complainant's daughter?

97-034

  1. Did the district, during the second semester of the 1996-97school year, improperly deny the complainant's request to conduct a review of his older son's IEP?

  2. Did the district improperly disclose personally identifiable information about his older son to members of the River Falls Police Department and to the supervisor of the administrative law judge who was conducting the hearing requested in complainant's March 20, 1997 letter (letter dated March 18, 1997)?

  3. Did the district, through its legal counsel, improperly disclose personally identifiable information about his younger son to the press?

97-035

  1. During the 1995-96 school year, did the district fail to initiate a multidisciplinary team (M-team) evaluation of the complainant's son when it was requested by the complainant?

  2. During the 1996-97 school year, did the district fail to initiate a multidisciplinary team (M-team) evaluation of the complainant's son when it was requested by the complainant?

97-036
This complaint was withdrawn.

97-037

  1. Did the district fail to implement the component in the complainant's son's (Matthew) 1995-96 IEP concerning one-to-one assistance?

  2. Did the district fail to implement the transition plan component in the complainant's son's (Matthew) 1996-97 IEP concerning job shadowing?

  3. Did the district fail to provide the complainant proper notice of the April, 1997 IEP meetings for the complainant's son (Erik) and daughter (Jamie)?

  4. Did the district fail to ensure that the April 1997 IEP meetings for the complainant's son (Erik) and daughter (Jamie) included the participation of a representative of the school board other than their teacher?

97-038

  1. Did the district fail to meet the requirements of PI 11.06 (1)(b) 1 and 2, Wis. Admin. Code, relating to the least restrictive environment, when it developed the complainants' son's placement offer for the 1996-97 school year?

  2. Did the district fail to provide the complainants' son with special education and related services consistent with the provisions of his 1996-97 individualized education program (IEP). Specifically, did the district fail to provide the special education and related services as described in the complainants' son's IEP under the annual goal related to improving the child's reading skills: "(child's name) will receive individualized education programming for development within all domains; Collaborative instruction and adaptations of objectives will be done by regular and special education staff, with individual support given in the regular education classroom when appropriate; and Home-school communication on an ongoing basis."

  3. Did the district fail during the first semester of the 1996-97 school year to provide adequate staff to implement the annual goal: To improve communication skills, and the short-term objective: To increase appropriate responses with peers and adults during (a) playtime, (b) recess, (c) classroom and (d) interaction with peers and adults in the hallway.

97-039
This complaint was withdrawn.

97-040

  1. Did the district fail to honor the complainants' request to convene an individualized education program (IEP) meeting in October 1996, and February 1997?

  2. Did the district fail to provide complainants' son with special education consistent with his current IEP?

97-041

  1. Did the district fail to provide the complainant's son transportation during the 1995-96 and 1996-97 school years?

  2. Did the district suspend the child excessively in violation of the law during the 1996-97 school year?

97-042
This complaint was withdrawn.

97-043

  1. Did the district during the 1996-97 school year fail to implement modifications and adaptations in the child's IEP for keyboarding instruction and classes in art concerning the use of a daily assignment notebook, daily prompts regarding homework materials, grading procedures, the child's physical location in the classroom, the division of assignments into sections, small group or one-to-one review of assignments, and weekly progress reports?

  2. Did the district during the 1996-97 school year fail to honor the complainant's January 1997 request that the district evaluate her child to determine the impact of his disability on his keyboarding skills?
97-044
Did the district during the 1996-97 school year deny the child a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) when he was excluded from participation in extracurricular activities?

97-045

  1. During the 1996-97 school year, did the district fail to conduct meetings at least annually to review, and if necessary revise, children's individualized education programs (IEPs)?

  2. During the 1996-97 school year, did the district fail to notify the parents of all resident children with EEN of their right to request extended school year (ESY) services?

  3. During the 1996-97 school year, did the district fail to insure that the issue of ESY services was raised at IEP meetings for [names of 4 students]?

  4. During the 1996-97 school year, did the district improperly exclude [names of 2 students] from ESY services when the district failed to apply the factors set out in Johnson v. Independent School District No. 4?

  5. During the 1996-97 school year, did the district fail to provide the parents of [names of 2 students] proper notice of the district's refusal to provide ESY services?

  6. During the 1996-97 school year, did the district fail to ensure that a board representative with the authority to commit the district'sresources attended IEP meetings where ESY services were determined for [names of 3 students]?

  7. During the 1996-97 school year, when the district provided ESY services to [names of 2 students], did the district fail to have in effect IEPs that contained the required elements?

  8. During the 1996-97 school year, did the district fail to provide [name of student] with ESY services consistent with her IEP?

  9. During the 1996-97 school year, did the district fail to base [names of 3 students]'s placements upon each child's individual needs?

  10. During the 1996-97 school year, did the district fail to provide [names of 3 students] ESY services in the least restrictive environment?

  11. During the 1996-97 school year, did the district failed to send the parents of [names of 3 students] placement offers that meet the requirements of PI 11.09(1), Wis. Admin. Code, after determining that the district would provide ESY services to each child?

97-046

  1. Did the district deny the complainant's child a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) when it failed to convene an IEP meeting and develop a placement offer for a program of homebound instruction for the child a reasonable amount of time after receiving a statement from a physician that the child was unable to attend school?

  2. Did the district deny the complainant's child a FAPE when it failed to send the complainant written notice of its intent to refuse her request for an IEP meeting to review her child's IEP?

  3. Did the district fail to provide the complainant with copies of the child's educational records within 45 days of her request.

97-047

  1. Did the district fail to provide the complainant's daughter with special education and related services consistent with the child's 1996-97 individualized education program (IEP) concerning: a) modifications in the regular classroom (daily monitoring of side effects of medication, and assignment notebook), b) counseling services, c) full-time aide, and d) administration of medication?

  2. During the 1996-97 school year, did the district fail to evaluate short-term IEP objectives related to catheterization?

  3. Did the district fail to consider a November 1995 independent evaluation of the child at the child's June 1996 multidisciplinary team (M-team) meeting?

  4. During the 1994-95, 1995-96, and 1996-97 school years, did the district improperly deny the student learning disabilities/cognitive disabilities (LD/CD) services?
97-048
Did the district fail to ensure that the June 1996 IEP meeting for the complainant's daughter included the participation of a representative of the school board other than the student's teacher?

97-049
Did the district fail to provide the required related service of transportation to three of the complainant's foster children during August 1997?

97-050
Did the district fail to provide the required related service of transportation to the complainant's daughter during August 1997?

97-051
Did the district fail to provide the required related service of transportation to the complainant's daughter during August 1997?

97-052
Did the district violate the law by denying the complainant's August 21, 1997 request for payment for an independent educational evaluation (IEE) of his son?

97-053
This complaint was withdrawn.

97-054

  1. Did the district prohibit the individualized education program (IEP) team from stating in the complainants' child's current IEP that the child requires the services of an aide?

  2. Did the district improperly terminate the child's toileting assistance at school?

97-055
This complaint was withdrawn.

97-056

  1. Did the district fail to evaluate, consistent with the provisions in the child's 1997-98 IEP, whether the short-term objective concerning the memorization of spelling words was being achieved?

  2. Did the district fail to comply with the complainant's June 2, 1997, request for a reevaluation of her child regarding assistive technology within the required time period?

97-057

  1. Did the district fail to include the parent as an equal participant in the development of her child's May 12, 1997, individualized education program (IEP), as the special education services and placement were predetermined by district staff and presented to the complainant at the IEP meeting?

  2. Did the district fail to provide the complainant with access to her child's early childhood teacher's log after making numerous verbal and written requests?

  3. Did the district fail to implement the complainant's child's 1995-96 IEP by not maintaining an autism specialist throughout the 1995-96 academic school year and for the extended school year (ESY) services; and by not providing administrative support to parents during the 1996 ESY when the homebound instructor was absent, hence leaving the parent to function as homebound instructor?

  4. Did the district fail to provide the complainant's child with a free appropriate public education during the 1995-96 school year, as the parent and Lovass Senior therapist trained the homebound instructors at parent expense?

  5. Did the district fail to implement the complainant's child's 1996-97 IEP by not maintaining an autism specialist throughout the 1996-97 academic school year; by not revising complainant's child's IEP after she was withdrawn from the Lovass Research Study; and by failing to implement complainant's child's IEP goals relating to scripted play drills, sensory integration, and one-to-one correspondence?

  6. Did the district fail to allow any discussion of the complainant's child's transition needs or the written transition plan as presented to the complainant at the May 8, 1997, IEP meeting?

  7. Did the district fail to consider the post surgery ESY needs of complainant's child at either the May 8, or May 23, 1997, IEP meetings?

  8. Did the district fail to evaluate, develop an IEP, and offer placement to the complainant's child in a timely manner during the 1996-97 school year?

  9. Did the district fail to include an objective criterion for a short-term objective in the complainant's child's May 23, 1997, IEP?

  10. Did the district fail to provide itinerant teacher services, as documented in the complainant's child's May 12, 1997, IEP until fall?
97-058
Did the district provide, without parental consent, personally identifiable information from the current individualized education program (IEP) of the complainants' son to a Waukesha County law enforcement officer on October 1, 1997?

97-059
At the end of the 1996-97 school year, did the district improperly remove the complainant's son from a regular education keyboarding class and during this class period and his study hall provide the youth with special education that was inconsistent with his individualized education program (IEP)?

97-060

  1. Did the District fail to follow proper procedures in October 1997 when it suspended the child whose education is the subject of this complaint?

  2. Did the district fail to follow proper procedures relating to parent participation in an October 22, 1997, meeting to revise an IEP for the student?

97-061

  1. Did the district fail to provide [Student A] with free appropriate public education by not implementing the complainant's son's 1996-97 individualized education program (IEP), as the choir teacher did not submit required weekly progress reports to the complainant?

  2. Did the district fail to provide the complainant with a complete set of [Student B]'s, educational records within 45 days of her August 1, 1997, request?

  3. Did the district destroy some of [Student B]'s Dubuque Management System Progress Reports (daily point sheets) after the complainant requested copies of the reports?

97-062

  1. Did the district deny the child tutoring as required in his interim individualized education program (IEP) dated September 12, 1997?

  2. Did the district deny the child an occupational therapy (OT) evaluation and a speech and language evaluation as required in his interim IEP?

97-063

  1. Did the district fail to appoint a multidisciplinary team (M-team) in 1996 which included persons, qualified to teach children with Aspergers Syndrome and the handicapping condition of autism?

  2. Did the district fail to conduct a timely M-team evaluation of the complainant's son during the 1996-97 school year?

  3. Did the district fail to consider the recommendations of the child's M-team, when participants developed the child's 1996-97 individualized education program (IEP)?

  4. Did the district fail to implement the child's 1996-97 IEP provisions that required recording the child's assignments on a weekly assignment log?

  5. Did the district fail to implement the child's 1997-98 IEP provisions that required access to a computer in the classroom, recording assignments on a weekly log sheet, counselor services, and participating in student assistance program groups?

97-064

  1. During the 1996-97 school year, did the district fail to comply with the parent's request for copies of their child's pupil records concerning the child's progress towards IEP goals and objectives, attendance, and videotape recordings of the child within 45 days of their request?

  2. During the 1996-97 school year, did the district fail to follow the required procedures in determining the least restrictive environment for the child?

  3. Did the district revise the child's IEP which was in effect when the child enrolled in the district without discussing the revision at an IEP meeting?

97-065

  1. Did the district fail, during August through November 1997, to provide the complaint's son with transition services in accordance with the student's IEP?

  2. Did the district fail to develop a written IEP for the student for the 1996-97 and 1997-98 school years?

  3. Did the district fail to make a free and appropriate public education available to the student from September 18, 1997, through November 28, 1997?

97-066

  1. During the current school year, did the district fail to implement the provisions in the child's IEP concerning a scheduled sensory diet, assistive technology, and augmentative communication?

  2. During the current school year, did the district include improper statements of the child's present levels of performance, annual goals, and short-term instructional objectives in his IEP?

  3. During the current school year, did the district fail to to convene an IEP meeting and develop a placement offer and notice for a program of homebound instruction for the child a reasonable amount of time after receiving a statement from a physician that the child was unable to attend school for over 30 days?

  4. During the current school year, did the district fail to to make a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) available to the child during the period the child was not attending school?

  5. During the current school year, did the district fail to send the complainants proper notices of its refusal to conduct IEP meetings, and its refusal to revise the child's IEP?

  6. During the current school year, did the district revise the child's IEP without discussing the revisions at an IEP meeting?

  7. During the current school year, did the district fail to include in IEP meeting notices the names and titles of all persons who attended the meetings?

  8. During the current school year, did the district fail to implement the parental participation requirements when the district sought to revise the child's IEP?

  9. During the current school year, did the district fail in developing the child's IEP to consider the child's parents' concerns for enhancing the education of their child?

  10. During the current school year, did the district fail to include a regular education teacher of the child and an occupational therapist as participants in the child's IEP meetings?

  11. During the current school year, did the district improperly develop the placement offer for the child when the district failed to include the child's parents and others?

  12. During the current school year, did the district develop placement offers for the child based on administrative convenience and not upon the child's needs?
97-067
Did the district fail to follow proper procedures to ensure that children placed in the special education program located in LeRoy were educated in the least restrictive environment during the 1997-98 school year?

97-068
Did the district violate the law by denying the complainant's October 6, 1997 request for payment for an independent educational evaluation (IEE) of her son?

97-069
Did the district fail to provide the complainant's son with needed special education and related services during the 1997-98 school year?

97-070

  1. Did the district fail to implement the provisions in the child's 1997-98 IEP by failing to chart accomplishment of the short-term objectives according to the schedule set in the IEP?

  2. Did the district fail to provide written notice to the parent a reasonable time before the district proposed to change the provision of a free appropriate public education to the child?

  3. Did the district fail to explain, in its notice to reevaluate the complainant's son dated December 8, 1997, why it was proposing to take this action?

97-071
This complaint was withdrawn.

97-072
This complaint was withdrawn.